Political Commentary,Published Work
Letter to the Straits Times on the Mas Selamat Scandal
Below is my letter published in the Straits Times on May 28, 2008. It is the original letter, containing the last sentence which had been left out by the newspaper editors
I refer to yesterday’s report “Mas Selamat escape: Detention centre superintendent gets the sack”. So the Government has sought closure to the Mas Selamat saga by handing out an assortment of punishments to the nine, mainly low-ranking, officers and guards whose security lapses had led to the escape of the terrorist.
I wish to express deep disappointment, shock and pain that in a national scandal of unprecedented magnitude and public outrage, it is only the little people who are held accountable and punished. By now, they are probably too frightened to appeal or seek redress.
Catherine Lim (Dr)
Final Comments on the Mas Selamat Scandal
Below are some final comments on the matter. I don’t expect to make any more statements unless new developments warrant them.
When I first followed the Government’s handling of the Mas Selamat scandal some months back, I wrote a commentary that expressed regret that the Minister of Home Affairs had not done the honourable thing of offering his resignation to set an example of the onerousness and dignity of high public office and duty.
Two days ago, when I listened to the Minister on TV tersely detailing the various punishments for each of the prison officers and guards responsible for the escape that fateful afternoon, my regret became mixed with shame and anger. I was ashamed and angry that in a society that prides itself on the highest standards of accountability and fairness, the entire blame seems to have been laid squarely on the shoulders of the ‘little people’ who, we are told, can appeal, but who, we all know, will have neither the courage nor the resources to do so.
In my 14 years as a political commentator, I have never been more outraged.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I totally concur with your comments. It’s always the ‘little people’ who suffer, while the ones who preaches accountability never had to be (ironically) held accountable. An opportunity for the ruling party to deliver what it preaches but instead, it has further lost its credibility (assuming there’s some of it in the first place).
May 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
For a serving Superintendent of Police to be sacked is a very dire tragedy for the Officer and his family. After serving so many years to reach the rank of Supt (pay: $9,000 pm), a dismissal means not only the loss of his current well-paid job but also his retiremnet benefits esp his pension-for-life and the substantial life-time medical benefits for him and his spouse. As I know this Officer I was worried for him and his family. Until I found out that fortunately he had already fully retired last year on reaching the age of 60. Thus he had already collected his lump-sum pension gratuity of abt $1 million as well as his CSC medical-benefits card. Whew! I was so relieved for him.It seemed he had been re-employed by ISD to continue in his position as Supt of the WRDC on a year-to-year contract. So all he lost was his new re-employment job there. I think his deputy, a DSP, lost more in being demoted to ASP with a corresponding loss of pay amounting to quite a sum per year. There won’t be any performance nor year-end bonuses for this poor guy.And to rub salt to his wounds, he is likely to end his career as an ASP. But overall, nobody actually lost his job except one…. that poor female ISD junior officer who happened to be at the wrong place and at the wrong time having to supervise the 2 Gurkha guards guarding MSK when he disappeared as a result of a comedy of errors.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Thank you for delivering the views, feelings and thoughts of us “little people” on the streets.
The gov could have taken this “opportunity” to strengthen the trust with the people by offering some political sacrifices at ministerial level.
Unfortunately, they didn’t and they have thrown myself and the people around me into the pool of more distrust towards their behaviour and conduct.
Till now, the NKF saga is a joke in the society.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Its sad that only little people suffer the consequences of event’s confluences, when it should be each and everyone irrespective of ‘sizes’ or ‘ranks’. To me, I m not merely outraged just as you, but I find it disgusting that the masters do not have the guts to punish themselves.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
“masters do not have the guts to punish themselves.” Really ? I think they have more guts than Dr Chee by punishing themselves with more millions of dollars and perks coming their way. They show unprecedent bravery in praising themselves in the midst of the saga and conceal the truth and giving nothing but lies and coverup. The MSM says no one to blame, now how come suddenly so many to blame ?
May 29th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Although the command director was neither directly nor indirectly linked to the lapses of specific officers down the line, and he was not at fault over the lapses, Mr Wong said he was formally the apex of the supervisory and management chain of command overseeing the detention centre. – CNA/ac
Now we learn a new management technique (for fans of the Dilbert comic strip, this-abovementioned sounds familiar). By assigning a subordinate to be an APEX, the buck stop THERE. Too bad….Let’s move on….
May 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I enjoyed reading your earlier views but this time you called the officers “little people” is not right. People make mistakes and they are punished, embarrassment and guilt they have to deal with for the rest of their lives. Come on, Let’s learn the lesson and do the right thing. Punishing people who are not directly responsible is wrong and useless.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Just a question. Can anyone confirm that Wong Kan Seng us related to Lee Kuan Yew and family ? Read a bit about the connection on the internet but never mentioned in the newspaper
May 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I wonder why the ST is not printing your letter to them in full? Is it to protect you from being sued? or is this editorial correction or a simple omission mistake?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:10 am
We are all “little people” in the eyes of this gov’t, unless you are somewhere at the top of the foodchain. Better get use to it if you have not. It has been thoroughly discussed by netizens that the MSK fiasco is a serious lapse throughout the entire organization and not just a few individuals. There has never been an audit on the security system and was admitted by WKS in parliament. He is top of the foodchain in his ministry and the buck ends with him and not before. Like the majority of the public, I feel outraged by WKS passing the buck. However I feel vindicated privately, because all this while I have serious doubts about the leadership running our country. At best third rate, compared to the numerous talents around us.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
This is really insulting. You may be surprised but little people have backbones and integrity too. They are just as capable of feeling outrage when unjustly dealt with. They are just as capable as “big people” to raise a stink if they think they are fixed up. They do not need “big people” to tell them what to do, how to feel, or to prop them up because they are soft in their knees. This is how some of our PAP leaders think-I am disappointed you are thinking the same way. Maybe all who think they are “big people” think this way.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
[...] MSK Fallout – catherinelim.sg: Letter to the Straits Times on the Mas Selamat Scandal [...]
May 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Here is a suggestion on how you can translate your “outrage” into action. Why not raise money and get some of your lawyer friends to help reinstate these “little” people. If not why not initiate a judiciary review to see if the punishment was lawful.
I suspect the answer is probably a no!
May 29th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I read elsewhere that Mas Selamat had escaped previously to Indonesia before his recapture and this last escape. And WKS was the Minister of Home Affairs at that time. Chua Lee Hoong mentioned in her article that this escape did not do any real harm to Singapore; lol ! so why did 9 people get punished for this supposed small matter? I wonder what Ms Chua thinks now? It’s too small a matter to punish the Minister under whose watch the guy escaped twice but big enough to make an example out of 9 people…. interesting…And do we have a strong enough opposition in Parliament to question the government? The answer is obvious. A sad day for the integrity of the government that LKY was boasting about….
May 29th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Dear Catherine
It is when something seriously happens like the MAS’s escape that our understanding on the “highest standards of accountability and fairness” is clarified.
Apparently, we seem to understand very differently from them on the definition of “highest standards of accountability and fairness”. At least now we understand that these “highest standards” are only imposed on certain groups of people.
Like in a lot of things, it is always easier when the punishment is on others – but when it comes to oneself, there are always tonnes of excuses why it should not be done – well, it is always more painful if oneself is at the receiving end of the punishment.
Our leaders are human & mortal afterall and like any other common & lesser person, they will react the same when it comes to avoidance of pain (punishment). In short, there is nothing so special about them.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Hi Catherine,
The term “little people” is very dismissive. It suggests that the prison officers and guards were of little value or no importance at all.
The Superintendent is no small fry. If any “small person” can be in-charge of a detention center, I anticipte more prison breaks.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I wish people would notice that Catherine Lim used quotation marks around the “little people” phrase. Obviously she is not dismissing them but is instead speaking up for them. It’s WKS who’s making the people lower in the hierarchy “pay” for the boo-boo. And did anyone notice this in ST dd 28th May ?
What it should have been In the commentary yesterday, ‘Address the emotions – or not? That is the question’, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng was cited as saying that he relieved the Officer-in-charge of the Whitley Road Detention Centre of his duties since he was ‘at the apex of the supervisory and management chain of command overseeing WRDC’.
This is incorrect. What Mr Wong said in Parliament was that even though the officer ‘was not responsible for the lapses of the specific officers down the line, he bears responsibility on account of his statutory appointment as the Officer-in-charge of the WRDC’.
We are sorry for the error.
Did anyone understand what WKS meant ? I don’t. Doesn’t that logic for relieving the officer in charge apply to the Minister himself ? I would say the same thing “Although the Minister was not responsible for the lapses of the specific officers down the line , he bears responsibility on account of his ministerial appointment as the million dollar, top quality , honest , incorruptible , honourable top dog in the Ministry of Home Affairs. As LKY said the SG goverrnment has won admiration from abroad … we should not begrudge these men their high salaries as they are high performing individuals. WKS should do the honourable thing and offer his resignation or take a pay cut or announce his ineligibility for any bonus this year .. taken from the tax payers that he was supposed to protect from terrorists. I share Catherine Lim’s sense of shame for the Singapore government.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I have written in to Prime minister’s office to suggest that whilst dismissing WKS is immatured since he should have left behind to clear the mess, there must be proper punishment meted. The best way is to not give him the “performance bonus” since in this instance, he had clearly “underperformed”. But guess what unbelievable reply i received : The PM has given his comments on this issue in parliament and they wish not to add on to it. Mine, i am disgusted. Can anyone tell me if as “little” citizen but taxpayers (paymasters to the ministers), do we have a means to write in a petition to seek the PM office to take up such a measure?
May 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The average person can get an idea of how difficult it is to hold top people accountable for their actions despite the benefit of media coverage and public condemnation.
The task is magnified thousand of times harder if you take on the powers from corporations/public and civil organizations etc on your own.
Justice for the average person? Forget it!
May 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Being a long time fan of your writings and sharp pieces, I am pretty much distraught by what you have said in your blog that “By now, they (I assume the little people) are probably too frightened to appeal or seek redress.”
I am ordinary rank and file civil servant. But I have my dignity, and am definitely not a spineless, hen-pecked and fretful “little people” you have branded me to be. I have my fair share of differences with politicians over policies and would often raise them in meetings and papers. I have never been punished or fired for my diverse views either.
In fact, I am actually quite happy that there is a clear rationale and thinking behind a disciplinary system that do not “conveniently” chop people off for political wayang. Civil servant make mistake and we all know that we will have to account for it if found responsible – because our actions can have severe repercussion and we have to be accountable to the people we serve, unlike private sector when it’s all about profit, money and cents. That’s why a fair and transparent disciplinary process is important, and this is definitely not Taiwanese political threatrics that Ms Lim has proposed here.
I cannot share your “sense of shame for the Singapore Government” as your assumption of the Government is the ruling party whom I do not serve.
The real Government consist of politicians, and more importantly the many hardworking civil servants who have unjustly taken flaks and ridicule from irresponsible postings who brand us spineless” little people” and in other forums “PAP lackeys” whom I totally take offence against. We are not.
It is therefore unfortunate that a well revered and matured intellect like yourself, who have undergone lives and hardship in pre-war Singapore, still wears coloured glasses and spew hurtful remarks against “little civil servants” like us.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Response to Lawrence Leow:
Have you not read about ex-Ministers of State who underperformed and (were told to?) stepped down had gone back to cushy jobs in the GLCs whereas people like the Supt. will be unable to find another job for life in Singapore?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Lawrence Leow gave clues to who the Supt could be. Probably an ex-Prisons Officer? I agree with Leow, I feel sorry for the retired Supt and his family. The retired Supt – because maybe he shouldn’t have taken up the WRDC job on hindsight and enjoy his 1 million retirement pension. The family – because the fact that Leow have gave clues to who the Supt is may probably and unintentionally put them in the spotlight. Given how resourceful netters are, I would not be surprise if their names are already floating online. There is a reason why their identity are held in full confidentiality for so long, so as not to cause inconvenience to the Supt and his family.
But, I cannot find myself to dispute the fact that any Prison break would entail the Supt to be held responsible?
By the way, I never knew retired Supt can get pension of $1million. I don’t get that much money. If so, then the Supt cannot be considered “little people”, can he? Where do we draw the lines for little people?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
@Disgusted: It is good that you write in to the Govt. to express your view. Even though the answer is hardly satisfactory, I wonder if the answer will change if more people organise themselves to send in petitions and individual letters. I know I want to write in to support censure for the Minister.
@Proud Civil Servant: I feel you read too much into the meaning of “Little People”. I volunteer my definition : People without the position and influence to make meaningful changes. I would offer that the Supt. is like a CEO, and the Minister, a Board of Director. Real visionary change can only be effected at the level of BOD. CEO is merely a management function. The line is not drawn by how much they earn.
The fact remains that political discussion between the people and the rulers are still very much castrated in Singapore.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
it would appear that many people misconstrued the meaning behind the “little people”. If u take word literally, I can see why you’re missing the WHOLE point. The main issue here is that there were people PUNISHED even though they were not directly involved in the incident. There is where the outrage lies. II was equally appalled to read the article stating that 9 were punished. My first initial thought that came to my mind was “double standards”. One for the powerful and one for the not so powerful “little” people. People in power would yearn to remain in power and there’s really nothing much we can do abt it. How I wish for this world to be a more peaceful space to live in without so much hatred, arguments and hyprocrisy. Doesn’t seem to be moving in that direction.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Hi Ms Catherine Lim,
I am a 27-year-old Singaporean woman who grew up reading your books and loving each story that you had written. When I was young, vivid images of the leads and scenes would jump into my mind as my eyes went over the well-chosen words that formed the story. Later, when I was studying, I admired your guts as a woman but I must say that I am disappointed over your latest comment on the MSK issue.
First of all, from an objective viewpoint, do you really think that having Mr Wong Kan Seng step down would aid in getting MSK back in legal custody? Or do you actually agree that if Mr Wong, as the political leader of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, remains in service and exercises his will and experience on recapturing MSK, chances of MSK being caught would be higher than if he actually bowed out of the political scene?
We all know the background of MSK’s escape. We know which department was most responsible. We know that people have been punished, some more severely than the others, or as you said, the “little people†bore the brunt of it all.
The fact remains that MSK’s escape was due to weak links in the chain of command within the WRDC. Do you truly believe that Minister for Home Affairs is actually accountable for the broken window and not realizing that Mr MSK had more than the usual one set of clothes on him? If this is your view, which I respect that you are entitled to your view(s), I can only lament that the bubble of fond childhood memories about my favourite author has burst.
I am a civil servant but I pay taxes too. To digress a little, please don’t say that the taxes that I pay are taxpayers’ money in the first place, so it does not make any difference. This is a common argument against civil servants but I just want to state that I chose this profession because I believe in giving back to my country by being part of the public service. I’m not altruistic, but I believe in doing what your heart calls you to do.
Anyway, the point I want to make is that we pay Ministers that amount of money for many reasons. In this particular incident, my wish as a citizen is to see that this Minister stays on to lead the team in ensuring that loopholes are plugged and the best efforts put in to arrest MSK.
I would be shocked if our politicians step down to “atone†for the mistakes of their subordinates. Hence, I do not understand why you are adamant that accountability is pursued till the very highest levels.
Can’t you see? It would not help matters for politicians to step down for mistakes made by their subordinates. I won’t say that they are totally not accountable, but looking at international examples, what has actions of harakiri achieved in national stability and progress? It makes for a good show.
Grand theatrics… but are you and all others who call for this person and that to resign going to take the reins and helm the operations? Would you know what to do even if you are willing to take the lead? Can you command the same kind of respect amongst the staff? Can you ensure that policies that provide the best possible solutions available be formulated? Or is it all talk and just more talk?
You are a good writer. A good commentator, spot-on some times… but this time, I feel that you missed the mark.
I am also offended at the term “little peopleâ€. I’ve been a civil servant for 6 years and though I am neither a scholar nor a high flyer, I refuse to think that I am just a “little personâ€. I have contributed to my department in many ways and these actions have in some way or another, shaped my department’s image and policies on the ground.
As pointed out by OBH, I have my backbone and integrity too! I do not allow myself to be bullied at work by the “big people†that you are referring to. I have a voice which I have used to express my views to my senior management, who listens. If I think something is unfair, I point it out. I do what I believe is right and I can bear the consequences of the decisions I make when choosing the approach to deal with sticky issues.
Don’t make me and those who are of my rank sound small. We are not as small or little as you think we are. We are, like what OBH said, capable of fighting for ourselves if we are fixed up. In fact, it is the strength of our voices that is powerful. Each one of us, from the junior clerk to the executive-ranks, is important because we help move things in the organisation that is called the Public Service.
So, quotation marks or not, please don’t belittle us. “By now, they are probably too frightened to appeal or seek redress.†— How do you know? Is this truth or just an assumption on your part? Your own imagination of us cowering in fear if we make mistakes? Sorry… We don’t cower in fear when we make mistakes or if people want to fix us.
Most of us so-called “little people†are nice civil servants. But we won’t stand at a single spot and let people slash us to death,you know?
I’m glad ST has the sense to remove that last line in your letter. People defend you in saying that you don’t mean “little people†as a degrading remark, but actually, when you penned in that line, you actually don’t think very much of us rank-and-file civil servants…
The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, but when used this way, I just feel a sense of outrage that is more intense than your “In my 14 years as a political commentator, I have never been more outraged.â€
May 30th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I was in the mrt this afternoon and since I had nothing to do, I was thinking about two things – being a ruler and being a leader.
I was brought back to my NS days when I served as an NCO. On one ocassion, during our training in Thailand and we were having our R&R, one of the coaches overturned and the passengers were flung out of the coach. One NSmen died, and 3 others were on coma for days.
My CO later stepped down to take responsibility for the accident – which was clearly the fault of the Thai driver and maybe the vehicle commander. The CO was nowhere near the coach when the accident happened.
His assuming responsibility for the accident, deaths and those injured by stepping down (and announcing it in front of the whole batallion), is something I will remember for a long time.
A real leader – one who did not hide behind excuses, or looking for scapegoats.
Or dealt in semantics and adhered to coldhearted pragmatic reasoning to excuse himself.
That is the mark of a leader.
It is easy to rule – especially when you have everything and everyone at your disposal: the media, the unquestioning subordinates, and the supportive superiors, and virtually no political opponents to bring you to task.
And so yes, you stay in your position, in your job.
But it shows one thing.
You may have the means to rule.
But you do not know how to lead.
And for that, being a Deputy Prime Minister, is regrettable.
If one day S’pore faced a real threat, and the same DPM were to ask me to stand up, lay my life for my country, I will frankly and honestly, think twice. Thrice.
Don’t be a ruler. That’s easy to do. Even Idi Amin was one.
Be a leader. That is harder to do but it inspires and gains respect.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:13 am
@confused people “The main issue here is that there were people PUNISHED even though they were not directly involved in the incident.” – So, Mr Wong Kan Seng is directly involved in the incident if those punished were not?
@Bernard “People without the position and influence to make meaningful changes.” – Disagree. The thoughts and views of the people on the ground, the assessment of the rank-and-file civil servant who does policy work shapes the direction forward with endorsement by senior management and political leaders. Not necessary that only changes envisioned by upstairs are meaningful. Changes that begin from the ground that float upwards and then back down again as a good policy are meaningful too. =)
May 30th, 2008 at 12:18 am
stayer staying elsewhere (SSE) he, she or shim, must love Catherine very much to come to her defence, Catherine is a clever wordsmith but in this instance “I am not sure of her real intent” not sensitive to the many who felt insulted by that “little people” phrase. I think “big people” think differently too
May 30th, 2008 at 12:24 am
To proud civil servant, boy you are naive.
In the eyes of the “materially rich” and famous tai tai who rubbed shoulders with the stinky rich and famous men, we “heartlanders” and “rank and file” people will always be “little people” and small fries with or without quotation mark.
In my humble opinion, Lim is an elitist, but a pretty and good figured pre-war babe nevertheless in her make up, tight tailored (or designer?) dresses and sexy mole. But she is not any different from those haughty Ministers and MPs who draw exorbitant pay package, but pretend to be in sync with the people on the ground. Talk about bridging the divide? Crap.
I am fed up with these intellects who think they are messiahs who can lead us to the light at the end of the dark tunnel they had ingeniously defined. If we do not buy into their divine ideologies to salvation, we are either stupid, cowards who mere atheist / infidels who are destined for hell. We can be materially poor but no one should deny our spirit by belittling us and branding us cowards and spineless.
I have a place to live, my wife and I have a stable job, kids are schooling and parents are retied. I am an average contented Joe. Is that a sin?
May 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am
hmm, Andrew , CO that stepped down because of car accident, you can respect him, but i wouldn’t go to war with him.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:36 am
@another civil servant I would presume that u r a female as any male who had undergonenational service would understand an unwritten rule that “you are responsible for your subordinates misdeeds even though you were not physically present or directly involved in the misdeed”. A leader and a highly paid one, one would have assumed that he would have to take some form of responsibilities. I do not call for the resignation of dom wks, but I would think that he accept certain responsibilities or get “punished” in some manner rather than just “let’s move on”. This is the reason why I made the double standards comment. In military, your subordinate gets 3 extra, you get 7 extra duty even thoough you were not at fault. Reason for you being punished more harshly is that u did not ENSURE that the misdeed was PREVENTED.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Interesting analogy confused people. I concur with you, in fact I think if a recruit lose his rifle outfield, a terrorist steal it and shoot a hostage, the logic would be:
Recruit – 3 extra
Buddy – 7 extras
Section Commander – 10 extras and 1 guard duties
Platoon Commander – 20 extras and 2 guard duties + demotion
OC – 30 extras, 2 guard duties + demotion
CO – 40 extras, 4 guard duties + demotion + no combat vocation
Brigade Commander – 50 extras, 8 guard duties + demotion + no combat vocation
Division Commander – 100 extras, 16 guard duties + demotion + sack from service
Chief of Army – 200 extras, 18 guard duties + demotion + sack from service
Chief of Defence Force – 400 extras, 36 guard duties + demotion + sack from service + kneel down in front of Singapore flag
Finally, Minister of Defence 1000 extras, 90 guard duties at Mindef and perform hari-kiri in front of the deceased,because he did not ensure that down the line, his staff did not ensure that the recruit would be well trained not to lose a bloody gun that would ultimately ended up in terrorist’s hands who used it to shoot someone.
Clap Clap. Love it.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:14 am
boy you can count, but you left out the Prime Minister and the President and god
May 30th, 2008 at 1:30 am
it’s good that u ppl noticed how ridiculous the system is. If so, why is it still there in the first place? Really double standards.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:35 am
To Jerome, Your humble opinion is flawed. Being rich does not mean she can’t have her own view and people on the ground (like myself) can relate to her view. Rich or poor is not in question here, its her view that counts.
And by the way, she earn her own money and not from public tax.
You claim to be average joe, but it is a sin if you can’t learn from this famous quote by a Pastor who survived the Holucast.
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
She speak up.
Luther
May 30th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Based on the government’s reasoning, if Changi Airport gets bombed due to guards sleeping, Defence minister will not be responsible because they cannot vouch for airport security.
This is ridiculous!
In private sector, which our ministers pay are based upon, top leaders undertake risks and vouch for the proper use of company resources when filing annual/regulatory reports. If any misuse of company resources, or any serious breach in internal controls are found, the leaders are held responsible because it is their duties to ensure that control measures are in place and working properly to detect problems before they become a big issue.
Surely we can demand our own leaders to be measured against the same yardstick?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Just a general point: This whole episode is just one of the many instances where we have seen incompetence from the highly paid ministers. I have little or no respect for people who are incompetent and they should be fired. That’s how things should be done. There are some people here saying that firing the minister won’t make things better. That is wrong. Removing incompetent people means we’ll get less screw ups in the future and hence benefits all of us if we were to look at the big picture. There are also people who claim that we can’t find worthy people to replace the ministers if they are fired. That again is flawed. Judging by the quality of the current batch of ministers in cabinet, it really shouldn’t be too difficult to find people of their calibre. I want to say that there are actually a lot of talented,capable singaporeans overseas that have been utterly disgusted with the way the country is run. We’re all working in real companies making real products. It is amazing to see how general incompetence in government is rewarded with astronomically high salaries. Meritocracy indeed. What a joke.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:45 am
To a certain extent, I agree with Blanket and Oviraptor – the crux of the argument is that these politicians have paid themselves too much despite protest from members of the public. It has now come back to haunt them.
However, to judge them incompetence is highly debatable. And in my humble opinion, having the Minister resign because a guard was sleeping when Changi Airport is bombed does not gel. Sorry. That would mean that the Minister have to go around patrolling the Airport 24 hours a day. I think his role is to formulate good policies and systems to minimize the threats and plug the loopholes, but there are always the unpredictable human error. On the same light, this same Minister has also prevented Changi Airport from being bombed earlier isn’t it? So every time a problem happen and the Minister is chopped or perform the grand theatrics of hari-kiri, don’t think any like minded Singaporeans would want to do the job. Only drama people like Koreans and Taiwanese will do it – so we will have to import them.
On Wong Kan Seng, all I’m uncomfortable with is his salary package. But other than that, really, I think he’s quite cut out for Minister of Home Affairs with his no nonsense style. I would hate a wishy washy Home Affairs Minister who sacrifice public safety for populist opinion. But again, that’s also my personal humble opinion.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I am of the opinion that Cat Lim is still obsessed/troubled with the humongous salaries-cum-bonuses our PAP Ministers pay themselves. She’s obviously after the blood of WKS a very Sr Minster being DyPM and therefore getting only slightly less than the top 4 civil servants(Prez, MM. SM & PM) at 3.7million p.a. each. When she called those hapless officers at the WRDC including the Supt WRDC “little people”, I think she was actually thinking of their relative “greatness” via their $$worth i.e. their incomes.Let’s just see the difference of salary between the “little people”‘s WRDC top officer, the Supt, and the “big people” specifically the Minister she’s after, Wong Kan Seng: WRDC Supt Lim’s monthly salary…… $9,000 MHA DyPM Wong’s monthly salary…… $200,000 Simply….Ministers get 22X more that a Supt of Police (top level of time-
scale and just before superscale) If you can see her perspective from the dollar view-point you can forgive her use of the supposedly derogatory term “little people”! To OBH…..I presume the God you mentioned above the President is none other than our very own Lee Kuan Yew? No lah, you forgot the rank before God…..KING! God save the King! Majullah Singapura!
May 30th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Who now is responsible for the recapture of Mas Selamat? This should be stated so that we know who to give credit to when he is recaptured or blame if he is not. This should be stated so as to avoid unnecessary arguments in the future.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Another Civil Servant,
I sensed and empathized your frustration. Although it is may not be a common view, we must learn to see that the Civil Service is distinct and separate from the political leadership. That it may not appear to be the case is wholly an artifact of the present administration and the People allowing it to be so. The acid test is when the nation is able to function unaffected through a change of political leadership.
The MSK escape is no ordinary mistake. If we care to tally up the cost, it would have been a VERY expensive mistake (actual cost and opportunity cost). We are also uncertain of the consequence of the escape. Does MSK intend to exact revenge etc?
Is WKS the best MHA that Singapore has or will ever have? I think the answer is clear based solely on his performance in the aftermath of the Escape.
Some people want WKS to resign precisely because his resignation may bring about regeneration in his Ministry.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Catherine Lim is stuck in her own ivory tower, and bitter from being unfairly bitten by the government more than a decade ago after A Great Affective Divide.
Without doubt she has made good points about the lack of responsibility shouldered by Wong Kan Seng, an anger that we all share, but she slipped that she is condescending when she used “little people” and assumed that they have no courage to seek redress. As a story-teller who knows the power of the nuances of her words, she meant what she said.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“little people” discredits what the superintendent and the rest of the staff have been doing well until MSK escaped
“little people”, i had been sleeping well at home while “little people” took care of my safety
i respect the “little people”. so should each and every one of u
May 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Well Done, Cath!
May 30th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
For a leader to ensure that he or she is in total control, must be competent enough to equip himself or herself to understand what is going on. Not just relying on the people who are directly doing the job. How does a competent leader of an organisation understand that his or her subordinates are functioning as per they are supposed to be? I guess in commercial organisation, a CEO would understand the quality of the company’s products through reports summary by the respection dept heads such as quality control and customer service reports. What puzzled me in this incidents is how could all these lapses as reported, missed out in the command and control chain. I can only think of it is either there was an absence of command and control or everyone just believe whatever reports submitted by the previous level.
A strong leader in an organisation must have the ability to organise the command and control chain so as he or she would be in total control of leading the organisation. Obviously this was not demostrated in this incident all the way up to the apex of the ministry. So should the minister be responsible, I suppose the answer is quite obvious. But should he resign, maybe not but action must be taken on the incompetent leadership.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
To Jerome:
Applaud u for your effort in your complete list of hierarchical responsibilities. But the big picture is, somewhere in the system, there is a big structural problem, and it’s at the top.
Took Leng How WALKED across the causeway. Richard Yong FLEW out of Singapore Mas Selamat PROBABLY SWAM out of Singapore as well?
Once bitten, twice shy, thrice ? “Better go and die”
Singaporeans all have short memories….
May 30th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
WKS has been the top of the foodchain at the MHA for umpteen years and he admitted in parliament that not a single audit or stress test was carried out on all the security systems. A simple procedure, yet overlooked by him and everyone down the line irrespective of rank, And he did not accept any form of responsibility. What about the COI ? It is a clear cut conflict of interest with the appointment of his subordinate from MHA. And as pointed out by netizens, WKS is silent and non committal on who is responsible for MSK’s recapture. Shouldn’t it be his ministry ? The public have made their assessment on his leadership and it surely does not measure up to the out-of-this-planet salary. By the way, I do not have any hang-ups being a “little person” and I am sure Catherine has been completely misunderstood by some netizens. I fully concur with netizens that we should all continue to speak up for the future of Singapore and its people. I cannot think of a better quote from Luther.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
To all these learned posters : lets cast emotions aside, and intellectul arguments aside like taking issue with the words, little people; lets be objective enough, plese allow me to sum up:
The buck stopped at the wrong place, which leads to; We dont have a courageous nor morally-honourable enough leader to accept full or partial responsibility as evidenced in non-punishment of the leader himself; Thirdly, the question was posed – how much have the M Selamat escape saga cost – and we still dont have the answer in terms of dollars and cents; Fourthly, as long as M Selamat is not caught, it is still a national disaster story unfinish; Lastly until M Selamat is caught – whether dead or alive – then I believe all Singaporeans (tax paying or not, stayers or not) then can truly say, lets move on.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
To ‘Another Civil Servant’, your remark
“Or do you actually agree that if Mr Wong, as the political leader of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, remains in service and exercises his will and experience on recapturing MSK, chances of MSK being caught would be higher than if he actually bowed out of the political scene?”
is somewhat presumptive.
[you cannot teach old dogs new tricks], Will he be so open-minded and humble to accept new constructive ways to resolve the matter. It will be very face-loosing if the suggestions should come from the “little people”.
It was first demonstrated previously in the Civil Service and Statutory Boards WIT programme. Fresh, efficient and cost effective ideas were not expeditiously implemented due to face saving.
“In this particular incident, my wish as a citizen is to see that this Minister stays on to lead the team in ensuring that loopholes are plugged and the best efforts put in to arrest MSK.”…..”Hence, I do not understand why you are adamant that accountability is pursued till the very highest levels.”
Like you said, in this particular incident, if the Minister is worth his salt, the loophole should never have existed. He should have the whole setup of the WRDC thoroughly assessed, (though not personally, but by personnels delegated), for its viability and effectiveness for its intended purpose. At the end of it all, he would have been duly advised, and endorsed the whole setup for use. Should he then not be held for accountability?
“I’ve been a civil servant for 6 years and though I am neither a scholar nor a high flyer, I refuse to think that I am just a “little personâ€. I have contributed to my department in many ways and these actions have in some way or another, shaped my department’s image and policies on the ground.”…..”I have my backbone and integrity too! I do not allow myself to be bullied at work by the “big people†that you are referring to. I have a voice which I have used to express my views to my senior management, who listens. If I think something is unfair, I point it out. I do what I believe is right and I can bear the consequences of the decisions I make when choosing the approach to deal with sticky issues.” ……”Don’t make me and those who are of my rank sound small. We are not as small or little as you think we are. We are, like what OBH said, capable of fighting for ourselves if we are fixed up. In fact, it is the strength of our voices that is powerful. Each one of us, from the junior clerk to the executive-ranks, is important because we help move things in the organisation that is called the Public Service.”
You have been very fortunate to have senior management who listens and allow for your contributions for the betterment of the Department.
6 years is not a long tenure in your position and you can be more vocal and readily bear the consequences. As your are still young and employable, you can rightfully be more vocal. When you have served longer and getting a substantial remuneration, I wonder if you can afford to be as vocal as your are.
The Public Service encompasses such a wide spectra of services, some cover more sensitive aspects than others, it depends on the scope of service of your Department and the amount of tolerance allowable for lapses.
What have been said is not to “belittle” anyone, but what have been perceived of the subordinates by the those up in the hierachy.
I wish you happy and fruitful life in the Public Service in the present Government and any subsequent better Government if you so wish to serve for your “I just want to state that I chose this profession because I believe in giving back to my country by being part of the public service. I’m not altruistic, but I believe in doing what your heart calls you to do.”
Good Luck!!!!!
May 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
[...] are the responses to my letter that was published in the Straits Times on May 28, [...]
May 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Dear Ms Lim,
I think your piece in ST expressed the sentiments of many Singaporeans. I’ve previously written to Forum about the Mas Selamat Scandal, but a line seeking “an infusion of new leadership” was edited out before it was published. When our local media started to publish commentaries which essentially played down the seriousness of the escape, it became clear that the government would like public opinion to “move on”. Sadly for our country, if the public continues to harbour a nonchalant attitude, it would not be surprising if the politicians think that they can get away with such chutzpah. Nonetheless, while they might think that they could get away with it for now, the way they handled this incident had only whittled whatever was left of their moral authority to govern.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
[...] Lim wrote a letter to the Straits Times on Wednesday, speaking up for the officers who were punished and expressing her [...]
May 30th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I am truly disappointed of the judgment.
This is not a small matter! It is clearly a case of utmost national security; and maintaining national security is clearly one of the government’s most important key tasks!
In the parallels of the corporate world, this ought clearly be a board-level issue – not just an operational-level issue.
However, the accountablity we are seeing here… seems to stop at the operational level, but not at the board-level – whom we voters (shareholders) paid so much with tax dollars to entrust them (board) to upkeep this key task.
In other words, the board are entrusted by us to set up the operations (who are merely carrying out the operational functions) to fulfill the board’s entrusted (i.e. accountable) objectives of maintaining national security! But national security is failing here, this is not merely just a functional hiccup, and I don’t see any thing demonstrated to make sense of all this to me.
As a ordinary citizen with the slightest bit of common sense and compassion, the government has clearly lost a lot of points with respect to my good faith in them.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
[...] Managing Public Expectations – TOC: 90 days since escape… no more information? – catherinelim.sg: Letter to the Straits Times on the Mas Selamat Scandal – Hear Ye! Hear Ye!: What does it take for a Singaporean minister to be sacked? – HWZ: Whitley Road [...]
May 31st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Dr Lim, you have given a voice to those who are afraid to speak up.
They will try to shut you up but thankfully you will not give in.
The problem with people who find fault in what has been written by Dr Lim is that they failed to see the whole saga in perspective. They failed to understand that this is a manifestation of decades of frustration, ill treatment, injustice, double standards and basically arrogance.
When someone who behaves in an arrogant, unforgiving way, claims to be whiter than white, grabs credit when it is available and not accepting blame when it should accepted, paid the highest salaries, you get the reactions like these.
The majority of the people reading what you wrote agree with it. I have yet to meet a person who thinks otherwise. Press on, we support you wholeheartedly.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
obh,
I think its not a apple to apple comparison. the child involved in wrong things do not affect the whole nation (albeit some people may be hurt).
This reminds me of the times when the government was claiming the success of the SAP program. They showed the O level scores of the SAP children vs the non-SAP children. Of course we see the SAP kids having better scores than the non-SAP. However when the difference was tested for significance based on the PSLE starting scores and their subsequent O-level scores, it was found that it was insignificant. Hence my usual comment that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. This means that Statistics can be even worse than Damn lies if we use it wrongly. It can mislead unsuspecting people.
Now coming back to this current MSK fiasco, it is very different. The “bigger people†should have played their part in ensuring that the areas under their charge are indeed run well. Audits must be conducted and formally reviewed to ensure such events do not occur. We have an organization (ISD) whose sole purpose is to maintain security and simply failed in their most fundamental role. The government decided to stop at the superintendent. Surely, the ISD director must be held accountable for not having audits done and formally reviewed. The ministry of home affairs did not even check or require that all subsequent units below have this discipline in place? Shouldn’t someone be accountable for that?
To me, Ms Lim had helped to put across this frustration well with her “little people†comment in simply the most effective manner possible.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Catherine’s quote” My intention in the use of the word ‘little’ was purely to emphasize the humble, low-ranking position of most of the nine people being punished; if the word carried any emotions at all, they were chiefly those of sympathy and compassion. Never ever could I see myself—or any of you who wrote in—belittling people such as security guards who make a simple, honest living in our society.”
Catherine has retracted her word because she knows it is wrong, get it?
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Catherine’s quote
” My intention in the use of the word ‘little’ was purely to emphasize the humble, low-ranking position of most of the nine people being punished; if the word carried any emotions at all, they were chiefly those of sympathy and compassion. Never ever could I see myself—or any of you who wrote in—belittling people such as security guards who make a simple, honest living in our society.”
Catherine has retracted her word because she knows it is wrong, get it?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
“I have noted with some concern that my use of the term ‘little people’ in my letter on the Mas Selamat scandal has been deemed offensive. And since there are quite a number of you who have been offended or even upset, I can only conclude that I have used the term inappropriately, creating a gap between the intended and the perceived meaning, and therefore owe an explanation. Hence I would like quickly to make the following clarification: My intention in the use of the word ‘little’ was purely to emphasize the humble, low-ranking position of most of the nine people being punished; if the word carried any emotions at all, they were chiefly those of sympathy and compassion. Never ever could I see myself—or any of you who wrote in—belittling people such as security guards who make a simple, honest living in our society.â€
its not a retraction.
it’s a clarification. please read her letter again — perhaps carefully this time.
a retraction will read that she admits she is wrong. a clarification explains her intent while still sticking to her message — which I support.
Her statement specifically states that “I can only conclude that I have used the term inappropriately, creating a gap between the intended and the perceived meaning, and therefore owe an explanation.†means that there might be people who misunderstood her meaning and she wants to explain.
it actually baffles me how a message as clear as that can be nitpicked to this point. perhaps singapore’s command of the english language is not as high as it should be.
its like PM Lee’s comment about fixing the opposition. he did not retract. he meant exactly what he said. he defused it with clarification because he knows the message is not acceptable to singaporeans — again without retraction.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
We cannot punish Wong Kan Seng as the govt will lose face. More importantly, he will lose his big fat pension accumulated over all his years as PAP minister. In comparison, the pensions that the little people are losing are negligible, and thus less consequential. PWO
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
obh, please read observer at 3 June 8:52 . Hope you get it this time. I suppose like someone else wrote , there will be people who will attack people who attack the establishment. If you really respect and care about the junior officers (or small fish as the ST editorial called them) you would have protested about the unfair treatment they received while the Director ISD and Minister of Home Affairs got off scot free. Instead of making a hoo-ha over the words “little people”. Perhaps to distract readers from the main issue at hand ? That the buck stopped at too low a level ?
June 5th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
A query on a small decision.
Who decided that Gurkhas must be used to escort the prisoner? Given the small numbers of gurkhas in Singapore, would it not result in over-familiarity between the gurkhas and Mas Selamat.
Further, given the special position the gurkhas hold, many NCOs and sups are wary of “ordering them around” as it is believed that they are directed by the top. That may explain why the first line supervisers did not immediately over-ride the gurkhas passive response.
As an independent state, it is time for us to review the roles of the gurkhas in our community.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Do we expect our leaders to be responsible for everything’s wrong that happen to Singapore and Singaporeans. Come, come, let’s put Singapore’s interest in the right perspective. While I respect CL’s views and intellectual skill, let’s not make your usual potitical attack of the Governemnt for your personal political gains. Give credit where credit is due. Criticise them by all means. The government had acknowledged and admit its failures…lessons will inevitably be learnt. The dismissal of the superindentent appears to be the result of what you so-called caring people are demanding…you want ‘head’ to roll, you get head rolling. Why can’t we all be reasonable and debate the issue without pointing our fingers, which is politically sensitive? Let’s stop the blame game and work for a better society, the world is getting worst not better for the majority of the people due to globalisation, with high oil price and now food prices. And it is not going to go away. I sincerely hope we don’t need a national disaster to tell us that we are all Singaporeans trying our very best to make a life good for everyone of us.
BTW, I was once a ‘little people’ you described. I bear no grudge with the government, even now!
June 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Raymond,
It’s not like the government lost a police car or something small like that. It’s losing a Number 1 terror threat to Singapore. Is this not a serious issue that must be taken seriously?
Even the government is taking it seriously by initiating the inquiry. Although the vast majority of the Singaporeans think it has stopped short of what is needed. Why are you taking it so lightly?
“Why can’t we all be reasonable and debate the issue without pointing our fingers, which is politically sensitive?â€
Why is it that when there is debate about how badly the government has performed, the government supports comes in and claimed that there reasonableness in the debate? It’s like the government claiming that opposition supporters only oppose for the sake of opposition.
Look at the US? They fired the defense chief when they mis-shipped and lost some serious equipment.
â€Let’s stop the blame game and work for a better society, the world is getting worst not better for the majority of the people due to globalisation, with high oil price and now food prices. And it is not going to go away.â€
Why do you think this push is not working for a better society? When we start showing the some people are more equal than others, that’s working for a worse off society. Don’t be so presumptuous to think your opinion is correct.
“I sincerely hope we don’t need a national disaster to tell us that we are all Singaporeans trying our very best to make a life good for everyone of us.â€
I hate to think what we will all say when a airliner crashes into Singapore airport — made possible by MSK. Is that what you are looking for? Will you be expect us to say it’s an honest mistake and lets move on?
It’s a serious issue and we should all take it seriously. the
June 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Thank You Observer for your interesting remarks. All very sensible except your insinuation that I take the escape issue lightly. I hope I didn’t give that impression, which if so, was not intended.
My point is the reaction of certain people, with due respect, Dr. Lim included, has proclivy to attack the establishment without due regard to the issue in question.
I do not like many of the government policies myself. But if one needs to criticise let do it constructively. Let’s work within the system. If the system is faulty, let’s Dr. Lim and other intellect people, get together and form an effective political party to provide the people with a viable alternative – that is a system we all aspire to have. The like of Gopalan Nair, Dr. Chee etc..are simply not workable, hence cannot be supported.
But to single-mindedly demand that a Minister must resign to take responsibility in order to satisfy some quarter, this is quite another thing altogether. Will this prevent the repetition of an error, no matter how serious? What good is it to the system? A call for action is not to be equate as a call for “blood”, “blood” of the ruling party. A call for action is to ensure that our system is further improved. And if this is achieved, the story must end, we have to move on. We certainly do not want a system, which in the name of democracy, human rights create more uncertainty, or worst damage to the country. An example is what is presently happening in Malaysia – very democratic but what’s good to its citizens well-being when personal vendatta is the name of the game?
I certainly do not agree with an isolated example you quoted about US. I will keep my Singapore Passport for an American one anytime. There are enough information for us to know the real USA. Obviously you can give many good examples and I can assure you, I can you as many adverse one.
My point again, to criticise for the sake of criticism is take the livelihoods of our common people recklessly, especially if one has hidden agenda, personal hatred or even inherent bias against the government. To be serious, in my opinion is to be constructively critical and argue with mutual respect and objectively, so that our own humility and seriousness for the betterment of the system can be clearly be seen as our main objective. What’s has high minister salary to do with the escape? This is, among other things, what I meant.
Rgds
June 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Raymond,
Unfortunately, I disagree with your thoughts in some key areas.
Firstly, I need to point out that I am not an opposition supporter nor a PAP supporter. I admire the PAP in some areas while in others I simply detest them. I really do not care if WKS quits or not. What I care here is that there are a lot of people who tries to justify the right to shut others up because criticizing the government seems to be a big no-no. I care that people focus on message and not nitpick on words and miss the context. I care that everyone has a voice and deserves to say it as long as it does not slander. So, here goes.
“My point is the reaction of certain people, with due respect, Dr. Lim included, has proclivy to attack the establishment without due regard to the issue in question.â€
Has it occurred to you that Dr Lim and like-minded individuals here do not see it as attacking the establishment (using your word) but asking for accountability? Are you suggesting that any challenge to the establishment is attacking it? I am sure there are individuals who are bent on attacking the establishment. Yet, there are individuals who are bent on attacking individuals who attack the establishment.
“If the system is faulty, let’s Dr. Lim and other intellect people, get together and form an effective political party to provide the people with a viable alternative – that is a system we all aspire to have. The like of Gopalan Nair, Dr. Chee etc..are simply not workable, hence cannot be supported.â€
Let’s see, this was first mooted by Mr Goh. Back then I though it was lame to say such things and I will say it to you now. Are you suggesting that one cannot comment on political issues and call what one views as a government’s failure a failure? Must one form a political party before one have the right to do this? Even LKY has no right to enforce this. This statement was made in an attempt to make the citizens perform self-censorship — which is not acceptable.
I find it amusing about your reasons in thinking that WKS leaving would not result in a better Home Ministry and result in uncertainty. I think the alternative will result. Honestly, I find it really disappointing that formal review of audits of sub departments is not done. I can’t help but wonder how many more ministries have departments that do not have audits done on them? With the call to “move onâ€, there will be calls for “not yet until…†This is unavoidable and we should just accept that there will continually be people who will ask for that and I think they should be allowed to register their unhappiness that the government did not take their opinion seriously enough. The government is not troubled by the fact that there will be people not satisfied by their lack of actions — neither should you. The government knows that they will never satisfy all the people and they don’t even try.
On examples of people who resigned and people who refused to resign, Unfortunately, those who resigned or got fired are more often in the arena where there is higher level of accountability. This is not a perfect correlation but I think you will find it so. Of course at the other end of the spectrum, you have many leaders to created horrific chaos and mistakes and yet they stayed on. I am just saying that the honorable thing to do is like what Dr Lim said. By not doing so, there is a sense that privileged people in establishment is protected. With the memory of all the justification of their incredible salaries, claims to all sorts of credits when things goes well and the unforgiving nature in which the government treats its adversaries, one can understand why there are people who basically took the same standard and applied it to the government.
To conclude, whether WKS resign or not, there will be absolutely no impact on Singaporean’s livelihood. It would however address a sore point with those who measure PAP to its own standards. It is every Singaporean’s right to state their political opinion as long as it does not slander — and they do not need to form a political party to do that. I actually find most of the anti-PAP comments constructive — probably much to your dismay.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Dear Observer,
If everyone agrees with everyone, then there is nothing to talk about isn’t it? That’s why we all write in our thought.
I accept what you have to say, but this does not mean that I agree.
The difference is, unfortunately, you have a habit, looking at your few comments you made, that you speak like CL2. You accuse other of presumptious, arrogance and even get baffled by the their command of English.
I sure hope we all learn to accept differing views graciously. Good to laugh at ourselves once in a while. That does not mean that we cannot discuss serious problems seriously.
In life, learning, unlearning and relearning are all that matters…in the process, we share we accept and we tolerate.
Happy debating…
June 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Raymond,
I have always maintained that we should all allowed to have our different views. That’s the thrust of my message. I do need to make sure my message is communicated correctly.
“The difference is, unfortunately, you have a habit, looking at your few comments you made, that you speak like CL2. You accuse other of presumptious, arrogance and even get baffled by the their command of English.”
I am not sure what “speaking like CL2 means†but I do try to call a spade a spade — especially presumptuous and arrogant people. Specifically those who try to shut others up by nitpicking on words and missing the message.
If being true to myself means I “speak like CL2â€, then I am proud of it.
You have been most polite in taking my comments and I would like to reciprocate. Thank you for listening.
I would like to leave you with this thought. You may not agree but please do reflect.
In this world, there are a lot of things that are said by very important people. Whether what they say is correct or wrong is mostly up to interpretation and more importantly the circumstances surrounding it. We must have the backbone to stand up and decide on it and not allow someone else decide for us.
Most importantly, just because someone has done good in the past does not give them the right to be unchallenged forever. They do earn more leeway as a result. One standard must apply and just because someone is powerful doesn’t give him the right to have double standards. We should expect everyone to treat everyone else like he would like to be treated.
Lastly, everyone deserves to be heard. If you do not like what you hear, walk away but we must not shut him up. The qualifier to that is that he must not cross the line and slander others. Any effort by anyone to muzzle that voice must be challenged by all of us — that is our duty. This is the only way for every individual to make their own minds up — too bad too many of us are willing to give up on this right. If too many of us give up this right, dictatorship takes over. This is unfortunately the failure of our human nature.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Dear Observer,
Just to get back to the discussion proper, let me reply to your views:
Has it occurred to you that Dr Lim and like-minded individuals here do not see it as attacking the establishment (using your word) but asking for accountability? Are you suggesting that any challenge to the establishment is attacking it? I am sure there are individuals who are bent on attacking the establishment. Yet, there are individuals who are bent on attacking individuals who attack the establishment.
Accountability to who? The People or the individuals? We all assume that what we think is right and must be the thought of the majority (we borrowed President Nixon’s Silent Majority – that is a sweeping and unsubstantiated statement and we postulate or even denigrate.) And why are you parroting Dr Lim’s, why not just state categorically that you share that view and debate on this basis, your conviction! Dr Lim can respond herself, can’t she? As far as I am concerned, whether we agree or not, the voters in a democracy decide at the end of day if the ruling party stays or go, even by a simple majority of 1 vote – that’s the system. Writing in the papers, internets etc..is a platform to provide differring views, suggestions for others to act upon. Don’t confuse that we can change policies, we can only provide views towards a policy. So we must clearly understand our roles, important but different, as compared to one who goes into politics – risks and gains.
“Let’s see, this was first mooted by Mr Goh. Back then I though it was lame to say such things and I will say it to you now. Are you suggesting that one cannot comment on political issues and call what one views as a government’s failure a failure? Must one form a political party before one have the right to do this? Even LKY has no right to enforce this. This statement was made in an attempt to make the citizens perform self-censorship — which is not acceptable.”
Even in America today, it is accepted that a One-size-fits-all democracy is faulty and the some World Organizations in the UN today are talking about what might be better alternative, you are still believing in “utopianism” is possible. Sure, we need to think for the best, but at the end of the day, what is best for Singapore is not and cannot be the best for everyone – this is not real. Having said that, sure we debate, we provide suggestions, we criticise, but we need to understand the position of those having to make decisions that need to satisfy the majority of the people – NOT all. But can’t one see that many criticisms are based on self-serving purposes or worst, not against reasons but the people behind the reasons, or in latin, argumentum ad hominem – this is what we call those so-called intellect’s own intelligence trap – keep repeating their angers at some issues, you ended up convinced it is gospel truth. Come, come, my fellow citizen, we live in a changing world where no man is perfect! Besides even moral value has different meaning to different people, even within a family, never mind the country or the world.
I am glad that you find my reason/s regarding WKS amusing – one reason is of course you fell into your own “intelligence trap” nothing to do with WKS or me. Like for CL, I must believe there must be something good about WKS. At least being amused is a healthy thing, instead of being angered. But don’t get me wrong, you are entitled to either way you like, as you say, so long as we don’t slander, better still, and if possible, don’t get too personal. I hope telling you that your messages came across to me as presumptious, and arrogance doesn’t constitute that YOU are arrogance. Far from it, I don’t know you. Neither is this a play on semantics.
Having said the above, rest assured, I do not intend this as my absolute correct views, it is just my views based on personal experience, which may be wrong, inappropriate, or even outdated and can be corrected if someone can convince me so.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Dear Observer,
We criss-crossed. And thank you for your understanding. Politeness does beget politeness. That’s great. I can totally ‘accept’ repeat ‘accept’ your views.
Perhaps, just let me share with you a view of yours that I cannot agree.
Quote: We should expect everyone to treat everyone else like he would like to be treated.Unquote. Very honourable and noble indeed. Tell me when or where you find such a society, I will go and live there. Perhaps in Sichuan NOW…
Rgds
June 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Raymond,
Ok, I’ll bite.
“Accountability to who?…â€
Accountability to the individual. The call is made by the individual to meet the individual’s expectations. This is our intrinsic right. Whether the government accedes to it or not is irrelevant. The right is to be protected.
“Even in America today, it is accepted that a One-size-fits-all democracy is faulty and the some World Organizations in the UN today are talking about what might be better alternative, you are still believing in “utopianism†is possible. Sure, we need to think for the best, but at the end of the day, what is best for Singapore is not and cannot be the best for everyone – this is not real….â€
I am confused by your change in tack. Why quote America when much of what is done there is being dismissed as inappropriate for Singapore? I certainly agree that there is no one-size fits all. In fact it the very fact that the Singapore government seems to want the people to think that only their solution fits all that gets me pissed off. I am in no illusion that utopia is not possible. However I think the alternative that everyone having a voice protects against the opposite — dictatorship. You too have that very same right which I want to (if given a chance) support if some crazed opposition person were to try to shut you up for your pro-government views. I may not support your particular view but will support the view that you have a right to voice it (again, as long as it does not slander).
So, I continue to find it strange that voicing these feelings which is inherently their right that they feel the government failed should not be viewed as self-serving or what-have-you or whatever intelligence trap. You don’t agree with the views, say your piece and move on. Like you said, there’s no need to get personal.
“Very honourable and noble indeed. Tell me when or where you find such a society, I will go and live there. Perhaps in Sichuan NOW…â€
There’s probably no such society out there as long as there are humans. We are all self centered. However, we owe it to our family, friends, fellow citizens that we need to at least ensure that everyone has a voice even if we do not agree with their views. Surely, this is every educated person’s responsibility — doesn’t matter if he’s pro-PAP or anti-PAP. The original comment (said in a reverse manner) was meant to show that sometimes some people are out for the government’s blood mainly because they feel the government has been vindictive and having double standards (sorry I seemed to be repeating myself).
June 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Dear Observer,
I don’t know about you, but I am beginning to enjoy this exchange with you. This is because of constructive exchange, albeit, differing views.
Sure. If ONLY we allow everyone with different and opposing views to enjoy such right, then it is correct. WKS too!!!! We may not agree that bankrupting people through defamation suit is the best way, we also did agree that slandering or personal and malicious attacks is not right too, didn’t we?
2.Why quote America
I quote the US Democratic System and Richard Nixon’s nascent terminolgy to specifically compare issues in question, not as a generalisation. But didn’t we want WKS and higher up’s blood? US sacks some Generals, which is what Singapore did and we cry foul?
Ah, but saying I change tack is liken to say that anything about a country, a party or a person one dislikes is that they are ALL bad. If this is called Standardisation, then isn’t it not better or appropriate in life that we should have more than one standards??? Still, I maintain I’ll not trade the Spore passport for the US. At least this part is consistent I hope. Having said that, I would rather err on this consistency on ideology bit, I rather choose to be consistently inconsistent in this changing world – I hope you cannot find this saying from any of our Ministers, lest it destroys my very happy principle in my life.
On the same paragraph, you write about the fear of a dictatorial government. We all live in a culture of fear, true or perceived. I somehow find it very interesting why people also preempt fear of this or that…Singapore has been called a police state, under a dictator, or a authoritarian. What does all this means? Sorry I have to quote USA again, is G Bush a true-blood democrat? Yes of course. How many percent of Americans is happy that they are in Iraq? How many Iraqi is happy now compared to under Saddam Hussein? How many are happy with the economy? Does it matter to a true-blue democrat??
My point is, what’s count is at the end of the day, are the people better off under a regime or are they worst? Is gambling & casino right or wrong? Does it matters, if at the end of the day, we have another huge source of income, create more jobs and overall, most Singaporeans can go about enjoying their lives (not equally of course). If a dictator can do a good job and care for the majority, why not? But that again does not mean that I will deliberately support a dictator who will deliberately for no good reasons oppress the people. We are simply too carried away by terminology!
Life in essence is about compromise. Human nature is such unfortunately as you concur. In any case, once people start to get personal, vindictive, hate, no reasons can prevails. A good friend of mine put it the best, why don’t we ask ourselves what good has the government done for the people? I thought it was most appropriate. Give credits where credits are due. Perhaps then we can discuss what are lacking in Singapore as vehemently and critically. No confrontational approach is fruitful. No matter who win, all loses.
Rgds
Rgds
June 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Raymond,
“Sure. If ONLY we allow everyone with different and opposing views to enjoy such right, then it is correct. WKS too!!!! “ That’s always my principle. So, its important that every individual do not be scared to speak up — in fact, should be encouraged to speak up. Call for WKS to quit. Call for WKS not to quit. Whatever!
“US sacks some Generals, which is what Singapore did and we cry foul?“
Defense chief is at least equivalent to the ISD director.
On changing tack, I was more referring to the idea of you not wanting to use US as a comparison previously. I personally have my alarm bells ringing every time someone uses another incident (mostly elsewhere in the world) to justify anything. I know I am also prone to do that sometimes. We need to test the example for applicability. I am not suggesting that you cannot use the US as an example.
“On the same paragraph, you write about the fear of a dictatorial government. We all live in a culture of fear, true or perceived. I somehow find it very interesting why people also preempt fear of this or that…Singapore has been called a police state, under a dictator, or a authoritarian. …â€
I am not sure thrust of this paragraph but I am gonna guess that you think I voice my support for a person’s right to speak based on Singapore being a dictatorship. Singapore is not a dictatorship. It does not mean it will never lapse into such a state. The best prevention is to make sure the right to speak is protected — without any self censorship (again without malice — my usual caveat). I am not gonna comment on US, George Bush and Iraq.
“My point is, what’s count is at the end of the day, are the people better off under a regime or are they worst? … If a dictator can do a good job and care for the majority, why not? … We are simply too carried away by terminology!â€
Whoa, here’s where the big difference between us lies. In animal farm, the pigs first got everyone together to oust the humans based on communist concepts about everyone being equal. Recall that I have said all humans are self centered, the pigs went on and declared that some animals (pigs) are more equal than others.
No matter how good the intention is by a dictator, at some time, the power corrupts. At no time will I ever support a dictator — I do not care how good he or she has delivered on improving people’s life. We have a right to ensure our children’s future is protected. A government is accountable to the citizens. That does not mean the government must listen and please every citizen but must please significant so as to stay in power. That principle must never be taken away no matter what that government has or can do.
“Life in essence is about compromise. … Give credits where credits are due. Perhaps then we can discuss what are lacking in Singapore as vehemently and critically…â€
Yes, it is about compromises. As much as giving credit when credit is due, we should also criticize when its due. Funny thing about taking credit, the government has no problems in this area. Like I said, it’s the standards which they have set that attracted so much criticisms in this case.
Let me paint an alterative scenario in which the PAP government does not sue their adversaries, they engage them in debate to show the errors in them as gentlemen. They are view as forgiving, fair playing, magnanimous and humble people. Salaries are more in the world’s norm. With the MSK fiasco, will the reaction be the same? Of course, we can only speculate. I am not suggesting that PAP need to change but it’s the standard which a certain group of people are using to measure them.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Dear Observer,
I am quite sure when Mr. Blair wrote his “Animal Farm” he wasn’t fortunate enough to be as direct or as free as we are. It was literally life and death for him, so he had to use pigs and other animals. Big Brothers today are still watching, no doubt, but I am sure they also realised, so are we – the people or voters (I cannot use pigs and dogs, so on…lest I hurt people’s feeling).
On your concern which you do emphasise a few times about protection of family and children, I for one believe Singaporean children are among one of the most privilege and protected (maybe over-protected) in the world – believe me, I lived in at least 10 countries last 20 years and visited at least a dozen more. The differences are very obvious.
Yes, people should debate, talk about the state of affairs, criticise, argue, complain and what have you (this is clearly free where we are). With good faith, time will comes, and I am quite sure, in this time and age of high tech communication, changes are taking place..we just cannot push because we think we are ready, are everybody else ready too??? As it is, the disparity between the have and have-not is widening…let’s be considerate with the less privilege too.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Raymond,
Its good that we agree on the point that we the voters are watching.
On Singapore children, totally agree with you there. I too spent alot of time overseas. Got educated overseas too. Depending on one’s view point, each country I have been to had its strengths and weaknesses.
On haves and haves-not, it is this very thing that the haves have the responsibility to look out and protect the voices of the haves-not. In my view too few of the haves do it.
I can’t recall ever having such a lengthy exchange ever. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Take care.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Thanjs mate…pleasure all mine. You too.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I refer to Catherine Lim (Dr)letter that the strait times are not always telling the whole truth about what is happening in Singapore. I think the Strait Times left out Catherine Lim’s last senrence because the press is trying to make the news sound nicer a bit and hiding their publicity.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
WALK GENTLY UPON THE EARTH
Learn to identify as the growing edge of humanity and a nation of people – a blended ability to see the ridiculousness of life while navigating the multiple levels of reality afforded by a lightening conscoiusness. We’re lightening up.
Even politically, the power of satire has a potent tempering impact on the excesses of those in positions of power; it is the essence of the court jester, able to speak the truth to the unreachable heights of kingship or rulership.
So it is within our internal world as we desperately seek to bring our own inner sovereign back into contact with all the other parts of who we are, during times of blind governance.
The danger of taking ourselves too seriously can bring a rigidity and tension to the energy field that restricts the flow of energy through us, at all levels of Body/Mind/Spirit.
Typically, it will reflect in our physical systems, either making us constipated or so stolid that we need massage rather than exercise gracefully. Mentally and spiritually, we can tyrannize ourselves to the extent that we have no slack, no give in who and what we allow ourselves to be.
It is a sobering thought that those who ruthlessly harass and oppress other people are likely to be acting far more harshly to themselves in their own inner world.
The clown dissolves knots, release the oppression of the powerful and the nightmare of the victim. While an increase in sadomasochism has met with a level of prurient disdain from some, it may involve no less a lack of humour than the knots we tie ourselves up in every day.
For a citizen, the practice was to ridicule the scandal, and sages have been shown riding backwards on donkeys, baring their backsides to to the moon.
Laughter helped in the quest for nationhood longevity and enlightenment. Blasphemy, needless to say, does not enter into the vocabulary.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
can you win me in basketball
December 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)
December 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)
December 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)
December 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)
December 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)
i yanbo assure you that we will solve the case.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
when a god loving mother who cares for her house and bring up her child only to see her naked pictures posted in an internet blog showing her having sex with a few boys. Did she do wrong? should her husband be blamed? or did her parents do wrong, or her grandparents or great grand parents…. i can go on till Adam and eve. So where do we stop. The majority of the “little people” would like to see the child punished and stop there. Learn from this lesson and not repeat.
It is precisely the high standards that we have set for ourselves that makes us hard to accept mistakes. So for a single mistake (not to be taken lightly) we change the top guy? if that is the case, every other top leaders must changed every time some subordinate make a mistakes ( i can assure you that they do, as they are human too)