Political Commentary
Overcoming doubts and stepping forth
I was pleasantly surprised, and much encouraged, that the Straits Times agreed to run the following excerpt of my speech given in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Studies, on 2 July.
Whatever strategies of communication I may use as a political commentator – directly through exposition, or indirectly through humour, irony and satire – I would like to continue to share my views with fellow Singaporeans.
There is one special group I’m interested in – those who follow political developments keenly and are now wondering whether they should move from being passive observers to active participants in public discussion and debate.
For them I have an urgent message: If you have the following reservations, you can overcome them, as I have:
Firstly, you feel bad about criticising a government that has done so much good for the people. The People’s Action Party (PAP) Government’s achievements have been so spectacular, surely whatever shortcomings it has can be overlooked?
But if you sincerely, strongly feel that the shortcoming is more than minor – that it is, in fact, a real defect of leadership style that could have serious repercussions for society in the long term – then you must speak up.
If giving credit where credit is due is a good thing, then giving criticism where criticism is due is better, for it entails greater effort, even courage.
There is a time and a place for praise and blame, trust and doubt, appreciation and anger. They need not exclude each other; indeed, together they make for a more balanced, integrated view.
I am probably the most seasoned critic in Singapore. But I have repeatedly expressed my profound appreciation for the safety, security, and material well-being of Singapore. Perhaps the most glowing tribute ever received by the PAP Government came from me four years ago at the time of the Indian Ocean tsunami.
I was so impressed by the Singapore Government’s rendering of help to beleaguered Indonesians – help that was noted not only for its generosity but also its quiet tact, calm resolution and warm empathy – that I wrote an enthusiastic article about it that was published in Today.
Secondly, you feel that since you are not interested in going into politics, since you don’t have the makings of a politician, you aren’t qualified to be a political critic. Wrong.
Political life is not for everybody. As long as you are a concerned Singaporean with worthwhile ideas, as long as you are motivated by conviction and good intentions, you can make a valuable contribution to the raising of political awareness and the enlarging of political debate, so sorely needed in Singapore.
I have been challenged, as well as invited, many times to get into the political arena, but my answer has always been no. For I am aware of my limitations, pretty serious ones at that.
For one thing, my personality and temperament make me quite unfit for the demands of political life. Being overly individualistic and solitary, not to mention opinionated and stubborn, I would find it very hard to submit to party discipline and consensus.
I’m sure if I joined any party, I would be booted out within a month. I can claim only two abilities – being able to speak and write. But that’s okay, as I can make reasonable use of them in my role as political commentator.
Thirdly, you fear that as a political critic, you will bring upon yourself the wrath of a powerful and implacable government, perhaps even strong punitive action. Wrong again.
I believe that much of the fear we Singaporeans experience is unnecessary and self-inflicted – which, of course, suits the PAP fine, since it makes its work of control that much easier.
I also believe that even a criticism-averse government must respect, even if grudgingly, criticism that is informed, measured, reasoned and principled, born out of conviction and a genuine concern for the well-being of the society.
At the most, the government might react to your criticism with a sharp rebuke; at the least, it might simply ignore you, as it has been ignoring me for years.
When my first political commentaries appeared in The Straits Times more than 10 years ago, there was initially an uproar, and the government was clearly angry. In fact, there were all kinds of rumours, some downright ridiculous, about how the government was out to get me. But as you can see, I’m still happily around.
You will notice that my operative words are honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions. Ultimately, these are the most important qualities to bring to any relationship in any sphere – political, business or professional, in the public or private domain.
So my rallying cry to Singaporeans is this: Think through, speak out, stand up and try not to be too afraid.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:02 am
really wishes Dr Lim can stand for election or be part of international organisation to continue to appraise political issues/freedom.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Way to go Catherine. This is indeed very encouraging message and right to the points. I think the myth has to be tested but obviously it will take a lot of courage and will to overcome the sub-conscious sense of fear that is so deeply rooted for any reasons.
Nevertheless, the environment that we are in today may prove to be a good testing ground to encourage our citizenry who genuinely care for the betterment of the country to speak out publicly or privately through the cyberspace (as some may have better written expression then oral encounter).
Open public discourse on controversial issues of concerns without any pre-conditions should be encouraged by any civilizations that cherish democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is not a contest of dare to be different. It is indeed a basic responsibility and duty of a citizen to care for the well being and betterment of the country that you want to call home. Human as such we are will always have varying views in anything abstract or cannot be proven like a mathematical formula. The importance of any engagement is to maintain an open mind to accept all views expressed that may sometime help shed lights to issues.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I am wee bit baffle by Catherine’s second point about going into the political space.
Was the statement meant to be a coded criticism of the perils of engaging in politics?
It seemed strange on the one hand to rally for people to be engaging in politics and then at the same time give spurious reasoning for her not joining a political party?
What kind of example is that? Hardly inspiring is it? Assuming that that she wanted to rally people to partake in politics.
I am sure the same reasoning could have been made by many writers such as Václav Havel, a former Czech President. Nevertheless, Václav Havel did step up to the plate and answered the challenge. If he went by Catherine’s logic then he ought not have taken up the challenge at a time when the country needs him to do so.
I am sure when asked to join a political party, everyone can come up with reasons NOT to join, in which case, then all you are going to end up is a whole bunch of political commentators and no one to take up issues thrown up by political commentaries. A bit like bloggers wanting to blog but then say they cannot do so because they can only type with two fingers!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:44 am
I believe there are many capable people out there who are cut out for politics and will do a good job. Catherine is honest to acknowledge that she may not have the desired attributes. She is a thinker and writer, and commenting intelligently and honestly is her forte. At this moment Singapore needs effective leadership to be an alternative voice and also to rally the general public who are rather demoralised. However it is a good strategy not to show too much until closer to 2011….never underestimate what the incumbent is capable of.
It is not difficult to identify the underhand means in politics and thus it is prudent for any new opposition member to be prepared for any unpleasant mind games. There are many men with good/clean track records and I implore them to step up to the plate for the sake of the people and country.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Its funny that I continue to see some to suggest that one should be in politics (like joining a party) to be actively involved in commenting on politics.
Some choose to even cast doubt on such people as bad examples.
I know it suits the government to push this line as was first stated by Mr Goh (ex PM). It will allow the government machinery respond robustly to any such comment by also lumping in everything else that has happened with that opposition party.
If however, one starts to comment on politics as concerned citizens, any response that is unfair or unnecessary harsh will be strongly condemned by the general public.
This is the main reason why the government wants to stop individual citizens from commenting. They try to set lame OB markers (which they certainly have no right to) to force majority of Singaporean to perform self censorship.
When individuals comment on politics, they are generally concerned (albeit, there are a few that have other agenda). It is the basic right for all citizens to comment on politics. Anyone who claims otherwise is basically trying to take away this right. This includes anyone who tries to suggest that comment as an individual is anything but the right thing to do (like being bad example, lack credibility, etc).
Everyone who disagree with the individual’s view (government included) can ignore or respond. That person (or government) must never ever try to muzzle out that voice. The option to take that individual to court is always there if it is proven to be slanderous.
So, I totally agree with Dr Lim that we owe it to our fellow citizens to comment. Make your voice heard. And by no means, do you need to join a political party.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I agree as a citizen, we should given right to comment. A good open system will take all feedbacks. But our system here seen to only want positive feedback to make the system look good for the master.I think is not too late if our leadser is open up to take netgative feedback and ensure that system is good for all.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Tan Ah Kow, we shouldn’t be not sensitive. People want to know why Catherine still become a armchair citrics and she state her reason. We should respect her reason as it takes a heart and commitment to serve a nation. I will rather she is more willing to be honest with the people than be deceit and pretentious. So we should not overly sensitive of why she state her reason.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Not everyone is fit to be a politician, especially a person like me who get so easily PISSOFF, hence my nickname called PissOff.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Pissoff
Like I say it is one thing to state reasons NOT wanting to do something. However if as Catherine has put it in the context of a clarion call for people to overcome their internalised fear to be engaged in politics. I feel her reasoning seemed somewhat lame, at least to me but others may wholeheartedly disagree.
Let’s revisit her key arguments again:
(a) “For one thing, my personality and temperament make me quite unfit for the demands of political life. Being overly individualistic and solitary, not to mention opinionated and stubborn, I would find it very hard to submit to party discipline and consensus.”
(b) “I’m sure if I joined any party, I would be booted out within a month. I can claim only two abilities – being able to speak and write. But that’s okay, as I can make reasonable use of them in my role as political commentator.”
Near the end she summarised that:
“I believe that much of the fear we Singaporeans experience is unnecessary and self-inflicted – which, of course, suits the PAP fine, since it makes its work of control that much easier.”
On reading her argument does it not strike you that her reasoning seemed to suggest a degree of self-infliction? It seemed that she had deliberately set up a reason NOT to do something. She wasn’t saying that she had joined a political party and then found it hard. In other words, she had not even tried her best and eventually found her attempt wanting.
I am NOT saying that she SHOULD have joined a political party. She is perfectly entitled NOT too for whatever reasons. But her reasoning need to be much stronger if she wants her message to have the desired impact in the context of a clarion call.
Now her counter-argument could be what about you Tan Ah Kow? I Catherine Lim, have published in my own name, and get away with it. So you can’t say I have not overcome my fear.
Well my respond could be exactly be along the logic of her reasoning to justify my not being a political commentator. Let me paraphrase:
(a) For one thing, my personality and temperament make me quite unfit for the demands of political commentaries. Being overly individualistic and solitary, not to mention not a good writer and strong headed, I would find it very hard to commentate in such a way that other may consider what I say is with “honesty”, “sincerity”, “conviction” and “good intentions”
(b) I’m sure if I start my blog, I would be “flamed” within a month. I can claim only two abilities – being able to talkcock. But that’s okay, as I can make reasonable use of them in my role as a talkcock king.
See I can just as well come up with reasons NOT to do something. Having come up with my reasons NOT to do something, I then go tell people that their reasoning NOT wanting to do something is “unnecessary and self-inflicted”. Does it not seemed somewhat odd?
July 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Tan Ah Kow,
I think your struggle may be because you think she is asking people to speak up and run for political office or something.
I think her intentions are quite different.
Excerpts from Dr Lim’s message: “There is one special group I’m interested in – those who follow political developments keenly and are now wondering whether they should move from being passive observers to active participants in public discussion and debate. For them I have an urgent message: If you have the following reservations, you can overcome them, as I have:â€
I believe she is saying that if you have a political view, you should speak up. That’s all. All the stuff about how she is not suitable for politics is simply stating that she still believes she must comment even if she is not going to join a political party because of those reasons.
Excerpts from your posting :
“See I can just as well come up with reasons NOT to do something. Having come up with my reasons NOT to do something, I then go tell people that their reasoning NOT wanting to do something is “unnecessary and self-inflictedâ€. Does it not seemed somewhat odd?â€
So with regards to your last paragraph, she is saying that people do not speak up and comment on politics is because of fear which is unnecessary and self inflicted. She is not calling people to join political parties or run for political office (neither is she saying that they shouldn’t) She is in fact being very consistent and not asking anyone to do anything she hasn’t done.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
observer:
The point I am trying to make is not whether she should have joined a political party or not.
The thrust of the argument is that people are not speaking up, REGARDLESS of whether one should do it in the context of a political party or not, and by Catherine’s reasoning is unfounded and unnecessary fear.
What I am trying to point out is that it is a bit odd to say that people should speak up and dismiss them for not speaking up as “unnecessary and self-inflicted”. In the same breath she seemed to be expressing what seemed to be “unnecessary and self-inflicted” fear reasoning for her NOT joining a political party.
How come one kind of fear (i.e. not joining a political party) is, by inference, deemed ok and the other (i.e. speaking out) deemed “unnecessary and self-inflicted”.
Whether she should join or not join a political is not the issue. I am not questioning her on that point. But the logic of her REASONING for not joining could just as well justifiably apply to people not wanting to speak up. So why is it when people not wanting to speak up apply her REASONING considered “unnecessary and self-inflicted”?
July 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Tan Ah Kow,
Her message is for a certain group — which I have attached in my previous post.
“There is one special group I’m interested in – those who follow political developments keenly and are now wondering whether they should move from being passive observers to active participants in public discussion and debate.†I hardly think she is dismissing people for not speaking up. She is encouraging people in this group to speak up. She believes certain people do not speak up is because of unnecessary and self inflicted fears.
Her reasons as stated in the message for not joining a political party are more her own admission of her limitations and her personality.
“I have been challenged, as well as invited, many times to get into the political arena, but my answer has always been no. For I am aware of my limitations, pretty serious ones at that. For one thing, my personality and temperament make me quite unfit for the demands of political life. Being overly individualistic and solitary, not to mention opinionated and stubborn, I would find it very hard to submit to party discipline and consensus.â€
Again, I paste same excerpts from her message.
“For them I have an urgent message: If you have the following reservations, you can overcome them, as I have:â€
Of course everyone can ignore her message and continue to keep quiet by quoting many more reasons other than those you pointed out. The choice is definitely not hers. However, what she is saying is that she has overcome this fear which is unnecessary and self-inflicted and she wants to share the experience.
I am unable to see your point. Just because she didn’t join a political party means she cannot encourage people to speak up? We all have different capability. If I have overcomed my fear to comment politically but continue to harbor fears (could be unnecessary or self inflicted or whatever reasons) to join a political party, does it mean I cannot encourage others to speak up or is seen as being inconsistent when I do?
She is not saying anything that she is not already doing. So, I think she deserves a lot of credit. Surely, she needn’t join a political party before she can start encouraging others to speak up.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
observer
As you have pointed out:
Her reasons as stated in the message for not joining a political party are more her own admission of her limitations and her personality.
Likewise for people who don’t want to speak up their reason for not wanting to could be pointing to their own admission of her limitations and their own personality.
So how did she come to the conclusion that:
I believe that much of the fear we Singaporeans experience is unnecessary and self-inflicted – which, of course, suits the PAP fine, since it makes its work of control that much easier.
How come in her case it is a case of her personal limitations and for those who don’t speak-up a case of fear?
July 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Tan Ah Kow’s reasoning seems to closely mirror that of typical PAP’s sophistry: you want to comment on politics, join a political party first; you want to encourage people to speak up on politics, join a political party first too.
For the benefit of people like Tan Ah Kow who either lacks the patience to finish viewing/reading Catherine’s speech, or who just prefers to misconstrue everything she has to say–intentionally or not, I do not know–here’s a summary of her speech:
Singaporeans are by and large too afraid to offer criticisms of the PAP government (or vote for the opposition) for fear of retribution (for some examples, view Catherine’s video). Whether this fear is justified or not, Catherine is just saying there’s no need to fear based on her own experiences and run-ins with the government. The main thrust of her argument is that you can like and appreciate what the PAP government has done for us, but you can also offer constructive criticisms at the same time; they need not be mutually exclusive.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Junjie:
Singaporeans are by and large too afraid to offer criticisms of the PAP government (or vote for the opposition) for fear of retribution (for some examples, view Catherine’s video). Whether this fear is justified or not, Catherine is just saying there’s no need to fear based on her own experiences and run-ins with the government. The main thrust of her argument is that you can like and appreciate what the PAP government has done for us, but you can also offer constructive criticisms at the same time; they need not be mutually exclusive.
Likewise Sylvia Lim could be saying to Catherine Lim, look at me I join a political party and nothing happens to me. So why don’t you?
The argument isn’t whether about people should join a political party or not. In any case what is wrong with wanting to join one.
The point is that Catherine should be more circumspect about dismissing other people’s fear as being “unnecessary and self-inflicted”. The fact of the matter is that when you do get into the political arena, there is no escaping the reality, either as a commentator or a politician, that you will be held up for what you say. So when people fear speaking up, it is not necessarily without foundation or self-inflicted.
Just as she can point out she has not been harness by the government but others can also point out that they have been harassed by the government. Even if not by the government but also by other who disagree with one’s view. Such fears are real and not unfounded.
If she had wanted to demonstrate that fear was not a demotivating factor for not wanting to join a political party than she should NOT have exemplify her clarion call for people to speak up by then using what by any reading of her reasoning, amounts to fear of joining a political party. Otherwise, people who are fearful to speak out could just as well use the same line of reasoning not to speak out!
July 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
A lot of attention has been focused on the fear factor. Indeed, it could be self inflicted (arguably), however, it can also be derived from the fear for their own family members therefore suppressing them from speaking out apart from loosing their own livelihood. Obviously, there are other untold reasons for people who aren’t happy of the situation but remain absolutely silence.
For example; if you are living without any KINS (parents, spouse, kids, siblings, relatives, friends and so on), the fear factor indicator is much reduced when so much pain had been inflicted or caused to a point where you can no longer accept. Then you will probably be more inclined to be vociferous. On the contrary, if you have immediate family members to consider and if they the immediate family members are fearful or do not share the same view or do not accord you with the support, and you being a considerate member of the family, it is likely you will suppress yourself consciously or sub-consciously to remain silence.
The point is not to argue the logic of Catherine’s reasoning. The point I think she is trying to make is clear for her justification as to why she is not suitable to participate as a politician rather she find it more useful to contribute as a political commentator. Do remember, before the advent of internet, you hear lesser or no discontent from citizenry in the past; that does not mean we are all feeling happy but because we have no other alternative medium to express our displeasure if we are so fearful to voice our opinion publicly under the current ruling government. Is this due to miss-conception or Ignorance or apathetic or the lack of understanding of our basic rights or because of the fear for our immediate family members? That I think is an individual’s choice that we should respect.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Observer:
The point I think she is trying to make is clear for her justification as to why she is not suitable to participate as a politician rather she find it more useful to contribute as a political commentator.
Er the title of her blog is: “Overcoming doubts and stepping forth” not “My reason for not wanting to join a political party”.
It ends with:
“So my rallying cry to Singaporeans is this: Think through, speak out, stand up and try not to be too afraid.”
So fear is the main theme of the blog here.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
The government may tolerate Dr Lim as political commentator but when she joins the other side, it is a different story.
I think Dr Lim will not join any party, not because she knows her limit, she does not want to be associated with the risk of being a politician.
So I guess this is the reason so many people will only talk and give speeches but when called upon to do the right thing, its only talk and more talk.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Ben:
I think Dr Lim will not join any party, not because she knows her limit, she does not want to be associated with the risk of being a politician.
IF that was indeed the case, it would seemed more, for want to term, honest to then openly say so.
Personally, if she said so, I would at least admire her for saying so rather than come up with some lame excuse.
After all, that is what she said in this blog:
“You will notice that my operative words are honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions. Ultimately, these are the most important qualities to bring to any relationship in any sphere – political, business or professional, in the public or private domain.”
The think about Catherine Lim and many what I call “approved dissidents” is that they like to give a naive picture of the real Singapore and then go high and mighty about things. I suppose it is the perils of being a novelist.
Just examine her clever use of words. Telling people to engage in “political debate” by being a “political commentator” but claim that one can avoid being in the “political arena” even if one’s inclination is that of a “political life”.
I think she should wake-up from her dream world and realise that the real world is not so neatly packaged. The moment you engage in any form of social discourse (engagement with PAP or even blogging) politics comes into play. Like it or not.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Dear Tan Ah Kow,
I understand the theme of Catherine’s article. That statement you quoted me was actually a response to counter your argument of why she did not join a political party.
You should be able to tell as I have started off on the note on fear factor and slip in a response to support her justification why she is better off being a political commentator.
If that confuses you I am very sorry about it. No intent to create any smoke screen.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Catherine has commented that she was so impressed by the Singapore Government’s rendering of help to beleaguered Indonesians – help that was noted not only for its generosity but also its quiet tact, calm resolution and warm empathy. I beg to differ.
Obviously there was a hidden agenda behind the generosity. If our Government is really that generous, we would expect our Government to accord the same standard of aid to the different countries hit by disaster just like we would expect our Government not to treat Hougang and Potong Pasir constituencies differently. Instead it appears that we see different levels of help schemes being offered to these countries in direct proportions to the level of benefits that we expect to get in return.
How should one treat this kind of aid ? Kind of mercenary isn’t it?
July 10th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Tan Ah Kow,
There is a big difference between commenting on political events and being a politician.
“Just examine her clever use of words. Telling people to engage in “political debate†by being a “political commentator†but claim that one can avoid being in the “political arena†even if one’s inclination is that of a “political lifeâ€.
I think she should wake-up from her dream world and realise that the real world is not so neatly packaged. The moment you engage in any form of social discourse (engagement with PAP or even blogging) politics comes into play. Like it or not.”
Comments on political events mean you are involved in the politics of that event. What’s there not to like? I don’t know what your definition of “political arena†or political life. Surely, you can comment on political events and not be suck into having to put yourself out as an opposition figure (if that view is against the government) or have to provide a manifesto to solve all the problems.
It has been demonstrated by Dr Lim many times over and she continues to get more praises than criticisms. I for one admire her and much of my friends.
Clearly you see it differently. In situations like this, we should allow the general public to decide if indeed she is to right to take her position that there is no need to fear to comment on political issues. Most of my friends feel that way. You may continue to think that Dr Lim is naïve, out of touch or even hypocritical. The test is always asking the general public if they think so.
However, you cannot ignore the fact that it is our intrinsic right to comment on political events. As long as we do not slander anyone, it may even be argued that we can say what we like and we do not even need to justify it. Everyone can conclude what I said as nonsense, ignore it, flame me, etc. That again is their right.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Media,
Comments on political events mean you are involved in the politics of that event. What’s there not to like? I don’t know what your definition of “political arena†or political life. Surely, you can comment on political events and not be suck into having to put yourself out as an opposition figure (if that view is against the government) or have to provide a manifesto to solve all the problems.
First of all I did not use the term “political arena” or “political life”. It was Catherine. So you have to ask her.
My guess, and my guess, is that she deliberately packaging words to somehow avoid one inescapable fact that it is not possible in the real world to say something is political or not. Neither can one even distinguish between one shade of politics from another. Politics is like pregnancy it is either you are or not.
Yes, one can comment on an event. But the truth of the matter is that when you comment on something, you should expect counter arguments and be prepared to stand your ground. By standing your ground, I don’t mean you have to be stand for election (i.e. definition of being a politician). But that the same time, if you want to comment on an event, let’s say a political one, should the counter argument for you to stand for election for your believe be considered wrong. As a supporter of the Chee Soon Juan’s cause, I know when the PAP raised the notion of politics for politician only means something ominous. But much as you dislike it the reality is the PAP is going to use that as a counter argument to your “political comments”. That is what I mean by the Reality.
Likewise, with all the Arsenal of legal threats, the PAP could be nasty to Catherine if it wanted to. But for reasons only know to the PAP it has not done so. That is the reality of Politics in Singapore.
Now the point of the argument in Catherine’s blog is to tell people to overcome fear and speak up. And in the thrust of her blog is that she dismissively indicated that fear is “unfounded and self-inflicted”. The question is whether she is living in the real world?
As for your point:
It has been demonstrated by Dr Lim many times over and she continues to get more praises than criticisms. I for one admire her and much of my friends.
That is very much your prerogative. It just so happens it is not mine. Even if it is a minority one — if indeed it is so. My comments is not whether she is popular or not.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Media
Have you heard of a phenomena called the Hawthorne effect?
Basically, it is a phenomenon where even if you are observing something you are causing the thing being observed to react to your observation.
Likewise, as a commentator, when you commentate on something you are effectively affecting the thing you a commentating on. So in effect you are involved however involuntarily.
The fact that one choose not to be an organised effort (i.e. part of a political party) or not (i.e. expressing one’s own view), you are involved!
July 11th, 2008 at 12:23 am
This:
Likewise, with all the Arsenal of legal threats, the PAP could be nasty to Catherine if it wanted to. But for reasons only know to the PAP it has not done so. That is the reality of Politics in Singapore.
Should read as:
Likewise, with all the Arsenal of legal threats, the PAP could be nasty to Catherine if it wanted to. But for reasons only know to the PAP it has not done so. Do you really honest belief that the PAP has not done so because Catherine is protected by the shields of “honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions”? Or maybe it is the case that Catherine is no real political threat? You go figure!
The fact that legal threats exist is a reality. To remove the legal threat you either have to overthrow the PAP and change the law or expect a miracle!
July 11th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Dear Tan Ah Kow,
“The fact that legal threats exist is a reality. To remove the legal threat you either have to overthrow the PAP and change the law or expect a miracle!”
No doubt about it and I do agree with you that it requires a miracle to make it happen. Nevertheless, I think the effort to encourage concerned citizenry to speak up and speak out and rid of fear is a laudable effort although it may be deemed as futile effort or not seeing the reality of things.
All changes do begin with with every small steps we take. Accummulated over time, it may become a reality. Status quo will persist if we do nothing at all.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Tan Ah Kow,
Seems like we are splitting hairs here.
She tries to encourage people who have political views to speak up. She goes on to offer what she THINKS is the reasons why they are not (probably based on her own fears i the past). She also speaks from her personal experience and how she overcame those fears. You obviously do not agree with what she think is the reason. I do not agree with your view but you have every right to make that statement.
Let me ask you this. Consider if I am a non swimmer. I decided to overcome my unnecessary and self inflicted fear of the water by learning how to swim in the pool. I finally can do 20 laps in the pool. However, I am still unable to overcome my unnecessary and self inflicted fear of the sea. If I am to ask people to take up swimming in the pool because I overcame that fear but unable to overcome the fear of swimming in the sea, should I be considered to be inconsistent? Do I need to overcome the sea first before I can encourage people to swim in the pool to be seen to be consistent?
Not exactly an apple to apple comparison (some may argue that swimming is not a unnecessary or self inflicted fear) but I think you can see the similarities.
Its not about popularity. Its about what the majority thinks. As you kept mentioning about the real world, everything in the real world is mostly grey. What’s right depends on the situation and context. That’s why its important to review our beliefs. If our beliefs is different from the majority, that does not mean we need to change our beliefs but it means that we must recognize majority’s view and in any democracy, that’s what’s gonna be the acceptable position. So, I agree with Media that the majority thinks she is consistent and right in encouraging people to speak up. You of course can continue to cast doubt and criticize her position — that is your intrinsic right.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hi Dr. Catherine Lim,
I read with awe and respect the many works that you have produced throughout the years:). I (a local Singapore student) am currently doing my studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, and will be carrying out an in-depth study on your works for a research program supported by the CURE Foundation. As such, I would very much like to carry out a personal interview with you at the end of july (as i will be heading back for Shanghai in aug). Is that possible? Looking forward to your reply:D
Cheers, Ziwei
July 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
observer:
This is what you have said:
“Let me ask you this. Consider if I am a non swimmer. I decided to overcome my unnecessary and self inflicted fear of the water by learning how to swim in the pool. I finally can do 20 laps in the pool. However, I am still unable to overcome my unnecessary and self inflicted fear of the sea”.
This is what Catherine said:
I have been challenged, as well as invited, many times to get into the political arena, but my answer has always been no. For I am aware of my limitations, pretty serious ones at that.
Now going by your analogy, Catherine’s respond is already like the swimmer saying NO before he/she has tried.
Catherine’s answer was NOT a case of “oh I have asked several political parties’s chief but they turned me down!”
She then turn run as say to people who may have their own fear of speaking and then say hey you must overcome your own limitation because yours is “unnecessary and self-inflicted” but in my case it is my own limitations?
The funny thing is then telling people that see I speak up and not be fearful and what example she use to argue the case. A case of look I am doing it, so you can! Yet by he somewhat coded admission, she is ready good at speaking and writing.
So the analogy is a bit like one a person who already has a gift for swimming then turning round to people telling who may not have similar gift to overcome their “self-inflicted and unnecessary” fear. So the gifted person is doing what he/she is gifted to do and then claiming to have “overcome” his/her “limitation”. You go figure the logic?
Continuing with your analogy:
“However, I am still unable to overcome my unnecessary and self inflicted fear of the sea. If I am to ask people to take up swimming in the pool because I overcame that fear but unable to overcome the fear of swimming in the sea, should I be considered to be inconsistent? Do I need to overcome the sea first before I can encourage people to swim in the pool to be seen to be consistent?”
Let me turn the analogy round. If one day you are in a plane and it crashed on the sea. Are you going to say, oh no, I can only swim in the pool. I can’t swim in the sea I must give up? Or I am only going to make sure I get into planes that fly over swimming pools because of my limitations?
You see Catherine’s call for people to enter the “political arena” means that like it or not you are going into the sea of potential lawsuits, etc. It’s no good saying, when you get into difficulty, hey don’t blame me I am only a “political commentator” not a “politicians”. Or you shouldn’t do that it’s my rights to commentate.
Like your swimmer analogy, its no good when you are thrown into a sea and than spend you time complaining that it is not fair, I can only swim in pools!
July 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi,
Great writes and very impressed as usual.
Main problem is not the lack of voices online. The way I see it, each grp seems to be shouting from their respective silo’s. So most of what they say only gets heard by their own cache.
In our net. I see at least 3 distinctive groups. Grp A people such as yourself Catherine who are very vocal, open and generally use very traditional mix to get your message across to a conservative audience. It hits but only a very defined market segment.
Then there are those who from what little I have been able to make out. Grp B. Live in a make belief world. I dont mean this in a disparaging sense. As they seem to have all the iconology of culture, history and even sense of belonging intact. I can only describe this group as highly intelligent and well read, but they are definitely a subculture. Again they pitch their message. It hits but only a very defined market segment.
Grp C is everyone else. Again they hit but only a very defined and select market segment.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Ah Kow,
I refer to your comment :
“Catherine’s answer was NOT a case of “oh I have asked several political parties’s chief but they turned me down!â€
She then turn run as say to people who may have their own fear of speaking and then say hey you must overcome your own limitation because yours is “unnecessary and self-inflicted†but in my case it is my own limitations?”
Perhaps its best put in point form for my thoughts
I just don’t understand where you read that
I suspect she talked about her non-interest to take the next level in joining a political party is to pre-empt calls for her to do that. I can’t see how her lack of interest to join a political party lessen her credibility in encouraging people to overcome the same fears that she had overcomed.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Media,
Neither have I called for Catherine to join a political party. The point I am trying to point out is that her excuse not joining could just as well equally apply to people who chose not to speak up.
So the question is why her excuse, and in the theme of he blog, which is to OVERCOME one’s own limitation/fear, becomes a legitimated reasons and when others choose not to do so because and “unncessary and self-inflicted” fear?
Remember she is the one using her own reasoning to justify her own limitations. It is not a case of third party realising her limitations. A case, of I say, I am limited so I don’t do? Is that an example of Overcoming?
She is hardly sharing her own experience. She is using her own experience as a challenged to others. Remember, in this blog she never ended with “this is my experience as you can see it is not a easy one. I can’t say you will or will not have an easy ride if you chose to do what I do. I have been lucky I have not been dealt robustly by the Government”.
It was a case of a rather high minded: “I believe that much of the fear we Singaporeans experience is unnecessary and self-inflicted – which, of course, suits the PAP fine, since it makes its work of control that much easier”. That sounds more like a challenge that a “sharing” of experience.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Media you said:
“She ends with the guideline on what should be observed when speaking up – which is honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions.”
Let’s put it in Catherine’s context. This is what she said:
When my first political commentaries appeared in The Straits Times more than 10 years ago, there was initially an uproar, and the government was clearly angry. In fact, there were all kinds of rumours, some downright ridiculous, about how the government was out to get me. But as you can see, I’m still happily around.
You will notice that my operative words are honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions. Ultimately, these are the most important qualities to bring to any relationship in any sphere – political, business or professional, in the public or private domain.
What she is saying is that nothing has happened to her because she spoke the truth, honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions. And that is why the PAP has not ter kan her so to Singlish speak!
Then what about Chee Soon Chuan?
or less controversially, what about the blogger who commented about A*Star?
So on the basis of this example, are these fears “self-inflicted, unnecessary?”
Come on in the current PAP climate, let’s get real!
Ok if she does not want to join a political party and want only to be a commentator, then is she prepared to stand by with those who are wrong by the PAP.
On her track record? No.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Catherine
From your message, I can sense you are commenting issues with a clear mind, sensitive or not, pleasing to the government or not and I must say I really enjoy reading all your commentaries. You are truly one proud Singaporean who stands up!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Tan Ah Kow
After reading your last comment, I feel inclined to pen my 2-ct worth. First, that opposition ‘hero’ is called Chee Soon Juan, not Chee Soon Chuan (his brother?, hope not for one Chee Soon Juan and his sis are already pain in the…). Freedom of speech does not mean 100% freedom in uttering rubbish, the way CSJ is doing now. Freedom of speech does not mean making/poking fun at politicans including President or PM the way the Taiwanese have been displaying, a circus of sorts for many, the world over to watch. CSJ is paying a heavy price for displaying too much of freedom in his many speeches, only to be proven wrong, again and again. Simply put, if he has high integrity in the eye of many, he won’t have lost in as many elections till he is disqualified. When he was sacked by his uni for cheating on taxi claims for his wife, he went on hunger strike in the hope to garner public sympathy for his ‘noble act’. I am for freedom of speech for a good cause, but not for freedom of speech the way CSJ is advocating.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Collin Ng,
I won’t argue about the issue of “freedom of speech” as you defined it. As the current comments I have about Catherine’s blog is about another topic entire.
I stand corrected regarding Chee’s name!
What I would say from your respond to me is that it demonstrate one thing a basic flaw in the Catherine’s so-called operative words: “honesty”, “sincerity”, “conviction” and “good intentions” as some kind of shield to help you overcome fear of speaking out.
Quite clearly you have chosen to see Chee in another light. I am not saying you are not entitle too. I am just saying you have chosen to DISCOUNT Chee’s actions as being worthy of Catherine’s shield of “honesty”, “sincerity”, “conviction” and “good intentions”. In other words, you don’t see Chee as being honest, sincere, with conviction and having good intentions. Personally I do see Chee as having the attributes enumerated by Catherine. So question who is right? You or me? (This is a rhetorical question so don’t answer)
You see my point now?
Putting aside Chee, let’s say a hypothetical person seen something fishy and detrimental to the country but the evidence is being concealed by some secret act of state. Should the person speak out?
If the person spoke out with “honesty”, “sincerity”, “conviction” and “good intentions” but no one else believe him/her because the person can’t produce the evidence. Do you think the Catherine’s list of attributes are going to protect that person from rebuke or in the worst case jailed or extreme case assassinated?
You see Catherine’s point about overcoming fear and having those high sounding attributes as your protection alone is no use. If people CHOOSE NOT to believe you then the fact that you have indeed spoken with “honesty”, “sincerity”, “conviction” and “good intentions” is not much protection from disbeliever really.
What I would say about your interpretation of “freedom of speech” is, I am guessing, that you expect people to exercise the freedom only when they have met the Catherine’s criteria. In other words, speak only when you say things that people want to hear. Don’t speak when other people don’t like the message.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Tan Ah Kow,
“The point I am trying to point out is that her excuse not joining could just as well equally apply to people who chose not to speak up.”
With all due respect, After reading your comment, I still yet to see what the commotion is all about. She merely stating her reason and that is her own personal reason why she did not join. And yet you continue to see her as “role model” and because she did not set a example of joining but as armchair critic, other will follow her way of doing likewise based on same reason Catherine states.
The only thing I says is not to be overly focus on Catherine Lim as a role model but focus on her message instead. Separate her personally from her message. Whether she can inspire others by being a armchair critics as we have seen is very effective, doesn’t it ? It is her way to do her part under her own constraint. I don’t think we should make a fuss out of that. Let’s the populace decide what her message bring not what she as a person could do.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Collin Ng,
I would like to pick up from your points on “Freedom of Speech”.
“Freedom of speech does not mean 100% freedom in uttering rubbish, the way CSJ is doing now. Freedom of speech does not mean making/poking fun at politicans including President or PM the way the Taiwanese have been displaying, a circus of sorts for many, the world over to watch.”
“I am for freedom of speech for a good cause, but not for freedom of speech the way CSJ is advocating.”
The essence of “Freedom of Speech” has no and should not have pre-conditions. Threfore, it is inevitable to hear conflicting views (factual or fabricated) if “TRUE” Freedom of Speech is upheld. The responsibility lies with the person who made any allegations, satarical remarks or whatever views. The same must be said that it is up to the receiving party to react, rebute, analyse the credibility of the views expressed and so on. Yes, indeed, it is a double blade sword. That’s the reality of life. That’s the essence of “Freedom of Speech” the same be said for “Freedom of Expression”. There is no in between. You cannot simply label a Mandarin an Orange just because they have similar qualities or belonging to the same citrus fruit category. “Freedom of Speech” is not CSJ type neither it is LKY type or whoever, whatever.
Mark Twain said, “The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug,”
July 12th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Pissoff,
On this point:
With all due respect, After reading your comment, I still yet to see what the commotion is all about. She merely stating her reason and that is her own personal reason why she did not join. And yet you continue to see her as “role model†and because she did not set a example of joining but as armchair critic, other will follow her way of doing likewise based on same reason Catherine states.
Er pissoff, I did not set Catherine as a role model. She did.
The theme of her blog is about overcoming fear/limitations to do something one is not comfortable doing. Throughout her blog she then set herself up as a model of speaking up. I repeat again, I didn’t set her up she did. All I am doing is to highlight what I saw as inconsistencies in the model.
She had sought to be a model and on that basis suggesting that one don’t have to indulge in “political life” in order to be a “political critic”. To me that seemed more like a tad playing with words to avoid the reality that come from being a political critic. I suppose a bit like an Army commercial showing you can be really garang show off to your girl/boyfriend or “join the Navy see the world” feel of thing but avoiding the fact that you can potentially be called up to really fight a real war.
To re-inforce the notation that one can be a political critic without being a politician, she then set up herself as a model by “explaining” (or excusing) why she was unsuited for life as a politician. Her excuse rather than explanation, I would say, stemmed from the fact that she discounted herself. I repeat again she discounted herself not the fact that she had tried and found wanting and then decide to against being one. On its own the excuse/explanation is not wrong. However, she did not stop there.
She then went on, let me put in a gentle way, to make a clarion call for people to speak up. In other words to overcome one’s limitation/fear. Again a perfectly ok thing to do. But she went on to suggest that any fears of speaking up are “unnecessary” and “self-inflicted”. Now here is where the inconsistency in her clarion call comes in. Lets study those two words carefully.
(a) On the issue of self-inflicted. When others choose not to speak out for their own reason, which incidentally could flow from the same logic in her so-called explanation, she seemed able to infer those reasoning as being “self-inflicted”. When she choose to recluse herself from “political life” on her own excuse, it is not “self-inflicted”? If one explanations is based on finding one own fault in order not to avoid doing something isn’t that self-inflicted? The word excuse comes to mind!
(b) On the issue of unnecessarily fears, she sought to suggest that by her own model, and with the shields of “honesty”, “sincerity”, “conviction” and “good intentions” one can also be like her and go forth and be a political critics without fear of repercussion. Here is where I see a chink in her shield. Her model seemed to be based on operating in some kind of idyllic political setting. All I did was to point out that whilst her participation as a critics seemed to suffer mild repercussion, it is by no means one rooted in reality. As I have commented the reality is when you choose to dabble in anything deemed political you cannot escape the repercussion likely to flow from you involvement either as a critics or a politician. So trying to sell the idea that you can be a critic and you somehow get lesser repercussion than say being a politician is naive to say the least.
So you see I am merely pointing out the flaws as a role model that she had set herself up as. I say again I did not set her up as a role model.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Thanks, Catherine, for that deeply encouraging article. I’m glad the straits times chose to publish it.
In addition to honesty, sincerity, conviction and good intentions, I think I’d add patience. Political commentators have to live with the fact that politics aren’t going to keep up with their ideals. Only then can they see political criticism for what it is: concerned citizens trying to push their society, bit by bit, in what they feel is the right direction.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Dear Jeff,
The ST has not much of a choice but to publish the said article ; the ST has to pre-empt the back lash of lack of freedom of speech, f it were not to do so.
Also the ST does not want the TOC to scoop it.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Hi Catherine,
My name is Pearlin Siow and I recently finished writing my first book, Boss of Me! – launched this month in major bookstores (www.bossofmesingapore.blogspot.com). I am working on my second book on passive income and would like to interview outstanding individuals in different fields who are experts in making passive income – a successful author like you. Please drop me an email so that we can discuss further. Thanks!
July 19th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Hi Pearlin,
I came across your post. As I understand it. The publishing part is not very difficult.
The real challenge is getting a good return on your effort.
I know for a fact, there are a few Singaporeans who do brisk business online selling novels.
One of the more famous one in Australasia is the brotherhood chappy. Darkness.
It is well known he did not publish his book in print as he complained incessantly, I might add with quite alot of colorful expletives (he seems to be very preoccupied only with $ all the time and I am constantly amazed how unabashed he is abt it!), he would only get paid a paltry 0.15 cents per copy and that’s not even tax rebatable.
So he sold it online himself.
His reasoning is simple economics. If I charge $1.00. I get $1.00. There is no friction cost. I control the entire distribution chain. There is no middle man and I have full editorial control. Best thing is its not even taxable as the currency this chap transacts in is in Lindens or monopoly money, so he banks it presumably in Mars or Jupiter. Somewhere down the line I am sure he turns it back into real earth money, but its virtually untraceable with no electronic signature.
However, I believe the style for writing online books is very different. I have done some research on this area at a Phd level and it may be worth reading up on it further.
You can see from the last chapter. There is a very detailed interview abt the whole creative process and I must say it is a real eye opener even for me.
http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/2005/02/12/the-confessions/
Good luck! I hope this will help you to achieve your dreams.
Best Regards
Majorie
July 19th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Dear Civil Servant
“The ST has not much of a choice but to publish the said article ; the ST has to pre-empt the back lash of lack of freedom of speech, f it were not to do so.
Also the ST does not want the TOC to scoop it.”
With references to yr last para, btw do feel free to correct me but wasn’t this whiter than snow white “scoop it” site once exposed for receiving money? Didn’t one of their writers even finally admit it to the whole wide world?
Dear Majorie,
As for the post above. Yes, what a great export that darkness character is. If memory serves. I did once subscribe to his sappy toe curling love stories. They were terribly addictive, short and formatted in such a way one could even read on a go. What I considered less flattering were to his cheap gifts he regularly sent out to his subscribers. I noticed the postage was marked Poland, to save money maybe? And what abt those terrible made in china chocs and plastic flowers with Baghdad camel scent? It never ceases to amazes me the lenghts that this idiot is prepared to go. And when one actually confronts him. He actually looks you in the eye and tells you they are the best chocs money can buy and to prove it he will even eat 10 boxes. Not to mention those roses are UV resistant> Wat an idiot! But I will have to agree, there is certainly an allure. As no Singaporean I know would even for one moment try to pass off bad taste as culture.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Tan Ah Kow, If you go to a mamak stall and order mee goreng and the mee goreng is not satisfactory does it mean i must open my own mee goreng stall before i can complain and criticise??? Cos thats what the gahment likes to say, “if ure not happy dnt complain join a political party and den complain.” Tan Ah Kow, some of us are just not meant to make mee goreng. We have an idea of what a good mee goreng should taste like but some just cant make it.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Leakin,
That Tan Ah Kow will say that you have not even try to make mee goreng, how can say you no good one? then he will say you cannot go and tell others to complain if they think the mee goreng is bad because you didn’t even try.
Aiya, his mind is closed. he only can think one way that complain about MIW is wrong so whatever example of reason is not acceptable – and use whatever methods he has to shut others up. this includes the MIW’s best strategy – when cannot convince, confuse. Or the media’s approach – overwhelm that person with so much information that that person simply cannot possibly read it all – wait that’s the same confusion strategy… ah i see the connection now…
July 25th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Hi Doc,
I did not go through all the comments, thus I may be repeating what someone else has said.
Your reason of not being a politician is because you would “find it very hard to submit to party discipline and consensus” – have you considered becoming a Nominated Member of Parliament? You don’t have to submit to party discipline and consensus to be a NMP, do you?
With regards to your “rallying cry to Singaporeans [to] Think through, speak out, stand up and try not to be too afraid”, I find it very encouraging. I am sure many Singaporeans are honest and sincere when they notice areas for improvement but not all have the writing or talking skills to present their honest and sincere feedback.
Nevertheless, I think those who can and with the skills (like you) should continue to “[t]hink through, speak out, stand up and try not to be too afraid”. As for me, I’m still trying very hard to think through and try not to be afraid… after I’ve improved up my grammar.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 am
Tan Ah Meow said:
If you go to a mamak stall and order mee goreng and the mee goreng is not satisfactory does it mean i must open my own mee goreng stall before i can complain and criticise???
Ah Meow, I never say you can’t complain. All I am saying is that if you want to be a complainer be prepared to be hit back.
What Catherine is suggesting is that you can somehow be a complainer and not expecting people to challenge you to cook a better mee goreng. If you read her article, she seemed to suggest that oh if someone call herself a “critic” and not a “cook” people cannot challenge me to cook a proper mee goreng. Is life so simple that when you give yourself one label rather than another you can be spared of the counter criticism?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Excerpts from Tan Ah Kow post
“What Catherine is suggesting is that you can somehow be a complainer and not expecting people to challenge you to cook a better mee goreng. If you read her article, she seemed to suggest that oh if someone call herself a “critic†and not a “cook†people cannot challenge me to cook a proper mee goreng. Is life so simple that when you give yourself one label rather than another you can be spared of the counter criticism?â€
Where she got say you cannot challenge her to become a cook. Even ex-PM Goh also got what.
Whether she takes up the challenge or not is up to her. It does not diminish in any way her points about speaking up and not be afraid.
Does it mean that we as citizens before we are given recognition and weight to our views, we must first have “cooked the mee goreng�
Just as Dr Lim can “complain about fear in speaking upâ€, you too can “complain about her being not involved in politics directlyâ€, just like all the MIW supporters and even Mr Goh have done and is doing.
However, surely the majority of Singaporeans can decide that certainly she does not need to be “cooking†to speak what she deems is true and to encourage what she deems is unplaced fear.
As can be seen in the exchange, you are unlikely to change your views and so are the many others who don’t agree with you. I think it best to leave it to Singaporeans to decide. I for one agree whole-heartedly with her.
BTW, I always the thought of asking someone to be directly involved in politics before commenting is a way of putting in self censorship among the citizens. It works to the benefit of the government.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Tan Ah Meow
As can be seen in the exchange, you are unlikely to change your views and so are the many others who don’t agree with you. I think it best to leave it to Singaporeans to decide. I for one agree whole-heartedly with her.
Did I suggest that people must whole heartedly agree with my views?
Of course, it is up to people to decide.
My point is not whether I agree that speaking up is a good thing or bad thing or that Catherine is wrong in asking people to speak up.
What I was saying is that her argument to get people to do what don’t come naturally to them is lame. The lameness comes in her argument for not wanting to so-called partake in politics. The fact that she choose not to partake in politics or not is her own choice. But when she decide to lead and asked people to “charge up a hill” and you then give all kind of excuses not to “overcome” your own natural inhibition to do something she does not like, what kind of call is that?
Remember it was she who set herself up as an example for people to follow. It’s a bit like in the army. If the PTI is only as good as the men he/she is training than what good is a PTI? After all isn’t a PTI supposed to be one step better than the men he/she is training?
August 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Tan Ah Meow,
BTW, I always the thought of asking someone to be directly involved in politics before commenting is a way of putting in self censorship among the citizens. It works to the benefit of the government.
Here I fully agree with you. When the PAP use such reply they are in fact a subtle threat. And that is the point I am trying to make about Catherine’s idyllic world of politics.
When you participate in commenting on anything whether you like it or not you are participating in that thing. It’s call Hawthorne effect. It is no use hiding behind hair splitting words like “politic critics” or “political arena” and hope that you can avoid people responding robustly. It’s no use telling the PAP hey don’t challenge me I am only a critic not a politician.
Also what about those people who do take up the opposition cause and really fighting for change? If you want to take up attitude like Catherine’s where we just side on the sideline be “objective” and just criticise or praise them but when they need support like for example, sued or unjustly persecuted and all you do is sit and blog. Is that fair to the people who are doing the real work? So all you want is to have the cake and eat it?
August 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Ah Kow,
You said : “Remember it was she who set herself up as an example for people to follow. It’s a bit like in the army. If the PTI is only as good as the men he/she is training than what good is a PTI? After all isn’t a PTI supposed to be one step better than the men he/she is training?â€
I think the major disconnect is what is our view of the people/organization we are complaining about.
In the case of the example of a PTI, when you are in NS, it is not a choice, it is forced upon you and is your superior and can make your life a living hell regardless of whether you like it or not and there’s nothing you can do about it. He holds the power and you are powerless.
In the case of the mee goreng seller, he is the subordinate. If he doesn’t do a good job, you complain as you like and take your business elsewhere. You feel no need to know how to be able to cook mee goreng. You hold the power and he is powerless.
So, is the government like the PTI or the mee goreng seller?
The reality is that the government is neither.
We the citizens voted the government in and hence for a period of time they hold power but yet they cannot wield the type of power a PTI can in our NS days. They can’t because if they do and its unreasonable they will pay the ultimate price at the next election of being voted out.
So, for someone like me, I see the government more like the mee goreng seller — in the aspect that they do not hold the power over me as I have options. So, I complain as I please and I see absolutely no necessity to have to be in politics to do so. Hence, I feel there is no necessity for Dr Lim to do likewise.
As you have agreed, it is up to Singaporeans to decide. The fact is that the people who suggests that her message is diminished because she is not in politics directly is extremely small (actually you are the only one so far) apart from those who are in or related to the government. So, please feel free to continue to insist that she should be in politics directly. It is your right. It is in fact a view that is not shared by many.
What we need in Singapore are all sorts of people who are willing to play different roles. We need those directly involved in politics like Mr Low, Mr Chiam and Ms Lim — people who attract a huge amount of respect. We need people who are able to unable for whatever reasons to be directly involved and still able to mobilize, articulate what the citizens feel. This is demonstrated by what happened in the Mas Selamat incident. Whoever can contribute constructively, I welcome. Of course this is subjective (like the government would think this is destructive).
Anyhow, I think you will never be able to convince me that one needs to be in politics to comment otherwise his message does not carry weight. Looks like I am not able to do the opposite to you. I’ll just leave it here at that.
BTW, I never liked PTIs. I seldom looked up to them. Most of the time, I outrun most of them. Most of all, I never wanted to be like them.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Tan Ah Meow said,
I think the major disconnect is what is our view of the people/organization we are complaining about.
Ah Meow then went on:
In the case of the mee goreng seller, he is the subordinate. If he doesn’t do a good job, you complain as you like and take your business elsewhere. You feel no need to know how to be able to cook mee goreng. You hold the power and he is powerless.
So, for someone like me, I see the government more like the mee goreng seller — in the aspect that they do not hold the power over me as I have options. So, I complain as I please and I see absolutely no necessity to have to be in politics to do so. Hence, I feel there is no necessity for Dr Lim to do likewise.
Catherine’s article is all about speaking out in a PAP controlled Singapore Politics. So just like a PTI in the Army, you have very little choice in the kind of environment you are in. In the Singapore Political arena, do you have a choice like to “take your business else where” as it were? Do you have a choice to say I don’t like PAP so I take my business to the opposition?
On this point:
As you have agreed, it is up to Singaporeans to decide. The fact is that the people who suggests that her message is diminished because she is not in politics directly is extremely small (actually you are the only one so far) apart from those who are in or related to the government. So, please feel free to continue to insist that she should be in politics directly. It is your right. It is in fact a view that is not shared by many.
Firstly, I have not insisted on Catherine’s joining a political party.
All I said was her reasoning for not joining a political party sound more like an excuse rather than an attempt, like the theme of her article, to overcome something that she is not uncomfortable with. Also, I point out that when she make what tantamount to an accusation that others who don’t speak up, their fears as unfounded. It seemed to me somewhat hypocritical.
Another point I was pointing out was that Catherine’s notion was that you can somehow be a critic of “political” issues but than stay away from politics is also naive to say the least. I have said again and again, when you open your mouth about something, you are involved in it.
When you comment on politics you are in politics whether you are part of a political party or not. There are repercussion. So when Catherine’s say things like speak up, your fear is unfounded and self-inflicted, and if you don’t join a political party, speak the truth, etc, there will be no repercussion. Is she living in the real world or not?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Ah Kow said : “Catherine’s article is all about speaking out in a PAP controlled Singapore Politics. So just like a PTI in the Army, you have very little choice in the kind of environment you are in. In the Singapore Political arena, do you have a choice like to “take your business else where†as it were? Do you have a choice to say I don’t like PAP so I take my business to the opposition?
I certain do not think in Singapore political environment is like the Army. I do not see the politicians equivalent to PTIs. The government can only affect your life to a certain degree and you have the choices which you can make. An example is “ERPâ€. I can choose to use public transport, change which route I will take, cycle, etc. But I can do most importantly is that I can vote against the government in the next election if it makes me mad enough. Alternative, I can emigrate. The government cannot do anything that angers the majority of Singaporeans for this very reason. However, with PTI, there are no choices.
What is your definition about being involved in politics? If running for political office or being in a political party being in politics? What about commenting? What’s the difference?
Personally, I think there is a distinct advantage to comment and not be in a opposition political party. It’s the avoidance of being targeted as a opposition member and lump together with those which the government has been able to discredit. If the government attacks a critic unfairly, the general public will be angry. As can be seen when the government acts what seemed unfairly on some opposition members, the response is muted.
Did she say there are no repercussions if you comment on politics? The fact is there are and she shares what they are and how she is affected by it. She had been rebuke and challenged to enter politics from none other than the ex-PM. She continues to speak up and continues to get repercussions. She is ready for it but is no worse off. That’s why she said to others to not be too afraid.
She obviously is living in the real world as what she has to say is shared by many who may not be able to articulate it as well.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Tan Ah Meow,
… But I can do most importantly is that I can vote against the government in the next election if it makes me mad enough. Alternative, I can emigrate. The government cannot do anything that angers the majority of Singaporeans for this very reason. However, with PTI, there are no choices.
If no opposition stand in your constituency, can you vote? No mee goreng store can you buy mee goreng?
Maybe you can emigrate but can everyone in Singapore do the same?
What is your definition about being involved in politics? If running for political office or being in a political party being in politics? What about commenting? What’s the difference?
If an opposition party member commenting on a policy and you not an opposition party member commenting on a policy are both of you not involved in politics?
If you want to comment on something do you not hope to bring about change? When a politician comment on a policy is he/she not hoping to influence change? So what is the difference between the two both cases?
When you vote as a voter are you not involved in politics?
August 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Ah Meow,
Did she say there are no repercussions if you comment on politics? The fact is there are and she shares what they are and how she is affected by it. She had been rebuke and challenged to enter politics from none other than the ex-PM. She continues to speak up and continues to get repercussions. She is ready for it but is no worse off. That’s why she said to others to not be too afraid.
This is what Catherine wrote about fear of speaking up.
Thirdly, you fear that as a political critic, you will bring upon yourself the wrath of a powerful and implacable government, perhaps even strong punitive action. Wrong again.
You go figure what she is trying to say!
August 6th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Ah Kow said “If no opposition stand in your constituency, can you vote? No mee goreng store can you buy mee goreng?â€
The analogy is to show the balance of power. The government cannot do something to one person directly if he has not commited a crime. It will affect the masses. This is the fact that we as citizens must be aware of. So what if there is a walkover. We can still play our part in politics by commenting. This will affect other areas which are contested.
“If an opposition party member commenting on a policy and you not an opposition party member commenting on a policy are both of you not involved in politics? If you want to comment on something do you not hope to bring about change? When a politician comment on a policy is he/she not hoping to influence change? So what is the difference between the two both cases?â€
Exactly my point. We are citizens of Singapore. We must all be involved in politics. We can be as members of political parties or even as individuals commenting on it. Either way, we are trying to effect change. Calling it being in politics or not is just labeling.
When one comments anonymously, there is less weight but still has much more effect than keeping quite. When one comments publicly as a critic with his/her name, there is more weight. When one becomes a political figure (ie from a political party), again there is even more weight added to the comment.
However, the reverse is true for repercussions. When keeping quite, there is absolutely no risk. When commenting anonymously, there is very little risk. When commenting publicly as a critic, there is more risk but still small as any governmental action will be viewed by general public as a action against a common citizen. When commenting as a political member…. Well you know what can be done.
On repercussions, you quoted Dr Lim’s remarks “Thirdly, you fear that as a political critic, you will bring upon yourself the wrath of a powerful and implacable government, perhaps even strong punitive action. Wrong again.â€
She did not say there are no repercussions. She said that if you think there is going to be strong punitive actions then she is advising that it will not happen. Of course we need to define what strong punitive action means. It is a fact that she faced repercussions from her write up on the great affective divide. She shared that and also stated clearly that she is none worse off. She also went on to explain the “strong punitive actions†like lawsuits that will bankrupt someone, ISD, etc will not happen.
I believe the main reason which she did not mention is that the government will never act harshly on someone who is seen by the public as part of the public – if what is being said is not illegal nor harmful to the public. So, if what Dr Lim has said affects only PAP, the general public will not be forgiving if she attracted “strong punitive actions†from the government.
Look, she has gone on to suggest a play that suggests (in a satire) that the government may discard democracy if they might lose an election and yet nothing happened. I think for what she is able to do, this is perhaps the best strategy and contribution to Singapore. Joining a political party would hinder her ability to articulate these concerns which is at the back of all Singaporeans minds.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Ah Meow,
The government cannot do something to one person directly if he has not commited a crime. It will affect the masses. This is the fact that we as citizens must be aware of. So what if there is a walkover. We can still play our part in politics by commenting. This will affect other areas which are contested.
The PAP government as it stands now can pass law to make it illegal to do things. For example, when it did not like opposition parties using videos to sell their message they pass a law to prevent that.
As for commenting, yeah, this has gone on since they day I was born (before independence) till today. But has it really brought about changes? For example, people in the early years were talking about the danger of giving the PAP too much power. Opposition even try to find an acceptable solution through the so-call by election strategy but still people vote for the status quo.
You see the problem isn’t a case of people in Singapore not speaking out. Lots of people have spoken out. Catherine is probably putting herself in a high horse by suggesting that she is trail blazing for others. The problem in Singapore is everyone, including myself a guilty one, not wanting to venture beyond commenting. Although I have in the past been actively involved in student activisms, I became disillusion not with the way the PAP goes about governing the country but with the attitude of fellow citizen. And it was extremely heart wrenching to see some friends being jailed and exiled.
On this point:
She did not say there are no repercussions. She said that if you think there is going to be strong punitive actions then she is advising that it will not happen. Of course we need to define what strong punitive action means. It is a fact that she faced repercussions from her write up on the great affective divide. She shared that and also stated clearly that she is none worse off. She also went on to explain the “strong punitive actions†like lawsuits that will bankrupt someone, ISD, etc will not happen.
When I talk about repercussion, I don’t just mean in the narrow sense that the PAP will do you in.
When you say something that you passionately believe in, you must be prepared to carried it through as well. For example, many writers such as Václav Havel, a former Czech President, found that there will be a time when you have to cross the line from being a critic to being prepared to be in the political arena. This is probably one extreme example.
Also you must be prepared to defend you views and those that share your views. For example, you write about the virtual of freedom of speech and others who agree with you view and willing to take on the “political arena”. Say the other hero took the “political arena” and got bashed and you as a critic just stand-by and not help out then you are nothing more than expressing a hypocritical view!
On this point:
Look, she has gone on to suggest a play that suggests (in a satire) that the government may discard democracy if they might lose an election and yet nothing happened. I think for what she is able to do, this is perhaps the best strategy and contribution to Singapore. Joining a political party would hinder her ability to articulate these concerns which is at the back of all Singaporeans minds.
Whether Catherine should or should not join a political party again is really her choice. But if you went along your line or reasoning, then would it seemed to be a argument for people to comment anonymously.
Catherine point out that she feels that by joining a political party she would be constrained in what she can say. So likewise on your and similar argument as articulated by Catherine, would the logical approach be for all to comment anonymously. After all, by your logic, when you comment anonymously you are not constrained by other issue?
August 7th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Ah Kow,
If you think that there needs to be political changes in Singapore, then encouraging people to speak up in whatever sense must be in the right direction.
Only MIW supporters and the government would want to “encourage” people to join political parties before commenting. As you agree this will impose self-censorship.
So, each in their own capacity within their own capability, I want to encourage to speak up.
I don’t know about how you want to define repercussions but what she defined it is based on what she has spoke about. She tells people not to be afraid of knock in the middle of the night by ISD, she talked about lawsuits. You keep quoting about Václav Havel, how many changes have taken place in the world by such people.
Is this the only way? Is your measurement the Singapore’s majority’s view? If not, one should reflect.
Dr Lim has pushed the political envelop more than any person I know in Singapore. Are you are asking her to shut up unless she joins a political party because you are saying she is a hypocrite by not doing.
A hypocrite is one that tells others to do something that he is unwilling/unprepared to do. She has not demonstrated this in her message.
If one is ready only comment in the coffee shops, then I would encourage him to do so. In time, he may be ready to comment anonymously.
If one is only ready for commenting anonymously, then I would encourage him to do so. In time, he may be ready to comment as a critic publicly…. And so on … to being a politician.
Some of us are only ready at certain level and may never get to the next level. Just because you are not at a certain level doesn’t make you a hypocrite to ask others to join you at the level you are at.
Regardless what level we are at, this willingness to comment on politics makes us more aware and will lead to more political awareness — which today is sorely lacking.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Ah Meow,
If you think that there needs to be political changes in Singapore, then encouraging people to speak up in whatever sense must be in the right direction.
Who defines “right directions”? You, me, Catherine, the PAP? Who? What is the so-call right direction?
So typical of people using all these high sounding words but can’t explain clearly what is meant by that.
I don’t know about how you want to define repercussions but what she defined it is based on what she has spoke about. She tells people not to be afraid of knock in the middle of the night by ISD, she talked about lawsuits. You keep quoting about Václav Havel, how many changes have taken place in the world by such people.
On the point of repercussion if you don’t understand my point I suggest you read it again. But to repeat, repercussion as I point out is not as narrow as you put it or as Catherine has seemed to imply in her writing. The repercussion is more than just what happens to a single person. It also effects others who have taken up your views and actually do something about it. Don’t just suppose that you can morally stand-by on things that you say and not take it into actions, i.e. standing by others who hold your views while they get bashed up. Just because you give this excuse that on I don’t want to be involved because I am only a critic.
You seemed to have difficulty understanding my point about Václav Havel. I did not say that he initiated change. All I say was that the Czech writer, like Catherine, was reluctant to enter the political arena but when the crunch comes, he was brave enough to “overcome”, like the theme of Catherine’s blog, his doubt and enter the political arena.
Dr Lim has pushed the political envelop more than any person I know in Singapore. Are you are asking her to shut up unless she joins a political party because you are saying she is a hypocrite by not doing.
I am guessing you have not had much lesson in history or you are simply blinded by your adoration of Catherine. No matter.
Might I remind you that others have also trail blaze too. Tang Lian Hong, Francis Seow, Tan Wah Piow to name some. They were not politicians initially but felt they had at some point to enter the political arena to effect change. Even in the PAP ranks, people have risk their own personal comfort to speak out. Devon Nair, Ong Teng Cheong and Toh Chin Chye.
So let’s not put Catherine in such high horse.
On the point about joining political party, have I asked her to shut up if you don’t join a political party. All I was pointing out to her was that her reasoning not to do so seemed very weak and did not seemed to congruent with the theme of her blog, which I case, you forgot is about “stepping” forth and “overcoming”. The reasoning she gave sounded more like an excuse not to do something that was uncomfortable so hardly example of “stepping forth” or “overcoming”.
If she wants, by her own example, to demonstrate what is meant by “overcoming” and “stepping forth” she ought to give more sound reasoning. Maybe her strong believe is that the political parties that exist now are not worthy of joining than say so!
I then went on to point out that in real life you cannot go on hiding behind the hair-splitting terms of being a political critic and not be in the political arena. There may come a time, despite one own limitations, where however prepared or unprepared, however you like or dislike it, you will have to enter the “political arena” to make you views worth it’s salt. Otherwise, all that you say is meaningless.
If one is ready only comment in the coffee shops, then I would encourage him to do so. In time, he may be ready to comment anonymously.
If one is only ready for commenting anonymously, then I would encourage him to do so. In time, he may be ready to comment as a critic publicly…. And so on … to being a politician.
People have been talking in coffee shops (real not virtual ones) for donkey years. I am sure they don’t need yours, or Catherine’s, encouragement to do so. Anyway, who are you, and for that matter me, to encourage others to do so?
I am sure people can make up their own minds.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Ah Kow,
My, you sure have a warped yet pessimistic view of things. I am sure you do not like to hear that but that’s what I think. You are welcomed to reciprocate.
Anyway, people do make up their own minds and clearly based on feedback to Dr Lim’s message, I don’t see the type of responses like yours. So, I think the majority of people do not see it that way.
I’ll just leave it at this point as I am total convinced I cannot get my message across. Sorry to have taken up so much of your time.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Ah Meow,
Anyway, people do make up their own minds and clearly based on feedback to Dr Lim’s message, I don’t see the type of responses like yours. So, I think the majority of people do not see it that way.
I do not pretend to speak for the “majority” or even the “minority”. I only speak for myself and I don’t care if the majority/minority agree or disagree with me. Beside who am I to speak for others. They can do so on their own.
If they don’t understand what I am saying, I will do my best to explain. Just like I don’t think you understand the thrust of my message, I try my best to respond. At the end of the day you can decide for yourself whether you wish to agree/disagree with my (not the majority/minority) view.
Whoever reads this comment I am sure can make up their own mind. It is not for me to encourage or discourage them.
Seemed to me you have this arrogance to speak for the “majority”.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:42 am
I’m not in for any comments,critics nor arguement.Justto post a perception of our country from a lowest-class citizen’s view. Without natural resources and even rely on Malaysia for water, at the point of indepence, can Singapore survives and reach this level of achievement if not for our leaders’ way of govervance. No one knows what Singapore will be, eg. if you has a baby can you know what will he be when he had grown up – physically and mentally, so as Singapore grows up healthy it has it own lifestyle.It chooses to become a first-class world,, thus to say, a dwelling place for the rich, look at the Flyer,Sentosa, Zoo, Birdpark, upcoming IR, activities like water-sport….all don’t come cheap as they areintented for tourists and well-off pleassures.All these will becomes a luxuries to the lower mass of us.The upper-class will not be lack of services: gardeners, guard, driver, cleaners…there will be queue to fill these services. On the road, posche, maserati,lambourgini etc driving in uncongested road because usuages of the road cost; a bomb to ordinary people but a peanut to the rich and it’s a prestige. So should I be grumbling,pack up to leave, no way it beyond my means,and dying in foreign soil’s not comfortable.Come to the worst situation, I’ll walk into a shop pick up an item,walk out and wait to be arrested for a period of 3-meal a day in prison…repeat the process till the handover of I-Die day.At least dies not of hunger.No point airing our grievances.They will not change anything that won’t affect their future to appease the mass, once in a while just create some activies for the mass they will be happy. That’s life in a rich nation, so what’ the use for voicing…. However, many thanks to you, dear Catherine for your compassion.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Ah ya.. the reason Catherine don’t want to join a political party is because she wants to be a Tai Tai Socialist. Nothing to do with her capability or lack of.
She wants to pretend to have a heart, care about society at large but at the same time don’t want to loose the opportunity to have high tea in Raffles.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
To Ah Meow n Ah Kow :-
After ‘glancing’ thru your comments, as a normal citizen, I would support Ah Meow ( thumb up for u ah Meow and thumb down for u ah Kow).
In all history records, a winner takes it all ! ( a loser standing small ). We could tell by the test of time of all your comments.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:04 am
REFLECTION
A frank discourse by a bumiputra of Malaysia. By Ahmad Mustapha The writer is a nephew of Dr Mahathir.
Singapore’s Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore’s founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practises corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one of the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore , with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that was deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia .
Therefore, it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia , a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpetted as an achievement that befits first world status.
This was self-delusion. Malaysians are led to believe in a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People’s Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future.
Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans.
Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in droves. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were ‘UMNO-ised’. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest.
Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO.
Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a ‘palace’ in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eyed umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever politicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it’s pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. For what purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say “menang sorak” (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia , and then Indonesia . To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei . All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ah Kow,
Why bother with Catherine Lim. Her so-called political commentary is about as worthy as a joke and not worth wasting your effort. That is why the government has not really ter kan her siong siong.
She has said nothing that people don’t already know. The only reason people hear her out is because of hype. Also with your typical Singaporean where even the most minor deviation from the norm, is considered “radical”, it’s no wonder her commentary is so hyped up.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Wah there seems to be quite a few MIW supporters here. Some more can disguise themselves like they are not especially this Tan Ah Kow and some more got support after that one!
I cannot understand why these people don’t want to hear what is written here but come here with all these long convoluted statements to try to discredit someone. They also do not even say anything in public can dare to say other people don’t do this or that. No shame one!
Finally the game plan is to try to stop people from commenting. Some more think people cannot see through their scam. I really think MIW supporters really no brain one! Blind worshippers. Don’t even have a mind of their own only want to spread confusion.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I agree with what Tan Ah Meow said about hypocrisy.
Everyone knows that she is only asking people to try what she has none – nothing more. Only someone like Tan Ah Kow can interpret the fact that she has not gone one step further (ie join a political party) equates to being a hypocrite.