Ch 12: final: 2 of 2

 

Establishing worthwhile leadership

We have had a single party dominate our lives with little opportunity for polyvalency. In their drive for inherited succession, they have shut too many good people out. For the good of the country, this needs to change. The PAP’s singular grasp has already limited diversity in representation, in socio-political thought, and in political strength. Just ask how many non-Chinese Permanent Secretaries we have. Not many. Why? Majority-minority ethnic preferentialism? Then, compare that to the ethnic Chinese who have served as Law Minister. Meritocracy? Expedience? Ask the same question again! And never mind ethics and right and wrong. Never mind the wives who were recruited into governing positions. Just to be ‘balanced’ would go a long way.

For starters, we would begin to see things without a dominant perspective over our shoulders – political, ethnic, whatever. What we have now is just more of the same. We have dominant Party members falling asleep in Parliament. Is there any better demonstration of a reality that says ‘I’m not supposed to make much of a difference, I just need to be here.’ (to show my face!) Could it be any worse? What we have is a dominant, institutionalized party that manages a seemingly subservient diversity. That is not much use. We have been captive to a weak plea of vulnerability that has been used to justify hegemony. Managing the well-being of a country effectively requires more than token justification. Ultimate decisions concerning political liability are decided by Parliament, not by the Courts. Uh huh. What should be done? Perhaps we should vote in all of our Opposition Party leaders, together with their strongest party members  into Parliament? Would that create a balanced diversity?  With no unknown salary arrangements, no ‘kakinang’ appointments, no Parliament sessions guaranteeing the truth of a disputed issue, no…….aiyah, never mind, lah. The people’s wellbeing is at stake – and that’s where the real vulnerability is. No time to play ‘hero lai liao’ (hero coming now) political leadership games. That was always a Tarzan movie fantasy in the 1950’s! It is up to the common people to change things for the better. And we can do it if we work together. Cohesively. The greatness of being small is that you can move fast when you want to if you have the will.

     Elected leaders need to make time to learn what the challenges are and what their individual strengths are. That is the sacrifice of time and effort required - to learn how to do the job well. This is eminently doable in a small place.  And if you’re learning on the job, then you should work twice as hard. No time for being a glorified ‘flyboy’ and treating meetings outside the country as a travel perk. The world needs limits on such leadership styles, and more Zoom meetings would be a start. Time and tax dollars get wasted and nothing improves. People come dressed up, talk, eat and go home. Where is the accountability on real progress? Oh, we made great progress. Really? And what does the reporting on it reveal, if anything at all? These days, depends on who controls the narrative! Ah, yes.  Leadership training for political leaders does not exist anywhere. For us, Ministers doubling up is simply futile and for show. All we have ever had are jacks of all trades, masters of none!

   We did better when we brought in good local private sector leadership. Like Richard Hu from Shell Corporation. But we didn’t maintain that effort.  Richard came into Finance and was good.  Then when Peter (Chen) retired as CEO from Shell and came in, he didn’t stay beyond his first term.  Why? I have used the word ‘kakinang’ here and there but have not done so lightly. Some candidates lost at Election time, only to return to be fielded again, until they eventually got into Parliament and then down the road, were appointed Minister even.  Others have not. One of the most regrettable losses was that of Seet Ai Mee, who would have been a leader of considerable accomplishment. Never returned to the field. Why? As her Pastor of several years, I knew her well. Even the hand-washing story involving her which was made an issue of at election time, was handled by Goh Chok Tong in very weak fashion, something she even described as an own goal.¹⁶ And what did other prominent persons have to say about such progression or lack thereof? Not much, and I knew quite a few. Same church stomping ground. So much for shared values and community and Christian contributions to politics.

   We failed big tent togetherness when we had the chance. A few marvelous exceptions here and there, like Phil Yeo. But not enough. As time passed, prospects seemed to thin, and we went the ‘kakinang’ route? And to say ‘now you’re a leader, go lead!’ makes it work? You might remember my earlier comments on the education minister in discussing the PISA illusion. Nothing personal. But did he know what he was talking about? No. No time to learn. So go out and say something that sounds good. Just be aware of the optics. And we’re already blind, as is. Same with the Deputy Director-General of Education at the time. No idea at all about what he was saying. And the Director-General of Education? Ah, that was Ho Peng, Ho Ching’s sister. (Ho Ching = the then Prime Minister’s wife).

   Nor will the SAFOS ‘General’ notion help us much. We’re just maintaining comfort levels for a select few. Look back at the section on meritocracy in Ch 10. To begin with, many with the right connections have been awarded Presidential scholarships, in some cases even  by father to son. And have they served the people? Or are they too busy being comfortable, while the unconnected but caring and intelligent never have a chance? There has not been a single successful SAFOS recipient who has done great things in the civil service. Of course you can mention former Rear Admiral Lui Tuck Yew, who, after his LTA (Land Transport Authority) ‘leadership’, has gone from one Ambassador post to another. Not necessarily an indicator of great achievement. Our idea of greatness? What to do now, in the face of the failure of the cross-functional scheme? Let the Opposition parties find others, for they have many? Get every Opposition leader elected? They will do better because they’re more intelligent? Maybe. Probably more like they will have a different motivation towards serving the people and the country, sufficiently different enough to enable them to make the right decisions for the people’s well-being. And they will learn as they go. Ken J, Soon Juan, Cheng Bock, Lim Tean, Pritam, Harpreet, and so many others, too many to name. Then some positive change can happen, as we reshape the lay of the land, piece by piece. Enough of selective playing at political leadership. Our children’s children cannot afford that.

   As a bit of closure, I walked the ground one last time. The physical appearance of the roads, the trees and the unending apartment buildings, all continue to be neat, orderly and impressive. But that orderliness has insidiously extended itself over time into both mind and personality with a certain repression, so that incoming newbies wreak a fair amount of havoc as they ignore established behavioral norms! Trash everywhere along the Jurong roads. And we are already a hotter city, as is.

   One early morning in the heart of town, having coffee with an old friend after a late night, there is a commotion at a lounge entrance across the road from where we are sitting. 2 guys and a girl emerge; some feisty words are exchanged, and then one guy grabs a trash can and trashes the other guy. Man, he didn’t see that coming! I start laughing.  RK, cool drummer and old friend who taught me a neat chord sequence when I was a young guitarist, says stop for God’s sake don’t laugh they’ll come over here. A police car passes by but apparently does not see them. The trashed guy moans in a corner. I’m still laughing. The trasher grabs the girl and goes back in. It was funny. The movies have come to town, I guess. But that’s what we’ve become now? Global city? Nah, that one just reminded me of a house party in off-beat cha-cha days! Someone would get either pissed or pissed off, someone would get called out, and a bicycle chain or something would come out. Lots of gangs in those days. Has much changed?

  In the end, every Country needs global vision and perspective, and both emerge out of real identity. We had real identity. Our government mucked it up. Now that identity founders. We traded in our developing social ethnicity for a ‘global city’ notion with PRC and CECA folks awash, and got what? An ongoing elite who keeps saying its all fine and good?  We just need to talk less and start improving things. Perhaps there is still a chance that we can show the world what harmony in a small multi-ethnic multi-religious place can be. But it will need leadership with vision, commitment, and really hard work.

Your call, Singapore. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ch 12 , and the last excerpts, 1 0f 2

 Dear friends, 

At the end of this week I will pull the 'Language & Politics in Singapore...'  posts as the text goes into publication. This Blog will take a break and resurface in early 2028 as 'Language & Politics in the US', probably the last book I will ever write! In the interim, I am halfway through the text of Jacob's Ladder and will complete that by the end of 2027. Read on...

Ch 12

Your Call, Singapore!

               “The goal of academic work is to enhance knowledge and inspire

              meaningful change.”  - B.C. Messina¹

 Hard thinking and sharp expression should lead to decisive action. And it will enhance our sitz im leben – our life situation. It’s a prerequisite to effective self-expression; and it shows us what’s really being said or left unsaid, when it comes to critical issues. If we cannot sort the issues effectively and distinguish what is from what is not, we will end up waddling through a lot of muddy frustration until we get it all straightened out. And only then can we begin to initiate positive change. Most of the time, the onus of clarity is on the backs of our political leadership; most of the time, they don’t come up to the mark. Political expediency (political ambition) seems to get in the way. Human nature, sure, but advancement and progress is not only about economies and technologies but about people growing in community, enhanced by moral accountability and capable leadership! We can and must do better for the sake of our children.

We started off this little journey looking at how we think and write. Then we dived a little into some of the issues in Singapore.  And raised questions about decisive action taken or not taken. Past and present, these are issues that require some hard thinking that should evoke responses from us about where it all could lead, for better or worse. In all of this, hard thinking and clear writing provide a pathway to understanding and saying what we want to say. Then we make the decisions. If no one is listening maybe we have to start yelling at them. When we do this effectively, we are able to bring together culture, religion and various disciplines. While these areas often use selective terms of discourse, they can adapt their self-presentation for the common purpose of working together for the good of all. This is the ethical obligation of leadership, and it actually carries an unwelcome political  imperative – to uncover the hidden structures that enable exploitation and inequality, where they exist. Leadership situations are so unhealthy these days that such a statement almost seems like a blatant contradiction! But from such a perspective, good writing has a critical mission – to democratize knowledge! And these issues continue to be struggled over, at home and abroad. Once again, a few examples (you should revise these!) where clarity (and more!) is lacking:

Locally –

1.       On matters related to revenues and taxes, for instance, clearer explanations of how the initiatives are hypothecated – in other words, how specific revenue is linked to our expenditure or policy – could help.  

2.       If every strong official narrative is that race and religion are fault lines, it’s natural that there are some Singaporeans who will misinterpret this as a signal that one would be better off if we were homogenous. I mean I don’t think that’s what the government is saying, but that is clearly the unintended consequence of that official rhetoric.

And elsewhere –

3.       I appreciate the time and the care that my editor takes to help me communicate clearly, to be accurate and very rigorous without overwhelming the reader or oversimplifying.

4.       He is accused of illegally covering up secret hush payments to a porn star he allegedly had sex with to protect his election.

This is the sort of thing we worked through for four chapters. If you think the 4 sentences above are fine, you ought to re-read those 4 chapters again. Or if you want to jump into advanced analysis, read Joe Williams or visit with Dr. George Gopen!²

These 4 examples are common form everywhere - such writing often ‘sounds good’ and seems to be okay but does not communicate clearly and is of little use. It almost always comes back to clarity. Without clarity there is so much vagueness, so much ambiguity, so much wasting of a reader’s energy, just trying to figure out what exactly is meant. My hope is that you, the reader, will take up the challenge and run with it, from the hard thinking, through the sharp writing, and into the decisive action needed for effective resolution. Or much will stay the same, and little will change for the better.

12.3 State of contradiction

On the outside, you get off the airplane, drive out of Changi Airport, and it’s very impressive. Easy access, smooth efficiency. You look around; and all the buildings you pass seem to shout out ‘developed society…..1^st world!’ Clean, green, impressive, new. You spend a few days at Marina Bay Sands, and it’s stylish and comfortable - nice touch, with heated toilet seats even! You go out to eat – there’s a lot of food around, and some of it is just right for you! It is expensive, but then….. good stuff always costs, so that’s not unexpected! As a modern city state, it seems just fine. But so much for the ‘tourist visitor’ view.

    For those of us who were born in Singapore but have moved on, we have gotten away from the authoritarian paternalism that we grew up with and with which the average Singaporean must still contend. We remember the old icons like the National Theatre, the ambition of ‘becoming a rugged society,’ and the old community values, where a community center was simply that. Singapore has become radically different now. These days, comfortable folk have everything they want and move within their own circles. But the ordinary folk struggle. The extremes have become appalling. What have decades of authoritarian paternalism done to the average citizen? We believe we’re good because we’ve been told that we are and have accepted it as true? We believe our universities are highly rated because we are referred to rankings that say so? Sounds good, but not so easy to make it work, though! The contradictions speak for themselves. How do foreign student tuition subsidies compare against those awarded to local nationals? Some local folk are not even able to use their CPF to fund their children’s education. Why?

   Kenneth Jeyaretnam has been blogging about such contradictions for years, providing a sharp and clear ongoing analysis. Have enough people paid attention to the points he’s raised and the explanations given? Some have. But that’s not enough by far. What causes so many to ignore the obvious and continue to believe what The Institution says?  A number of factors offer themselves. 

   Those of the younger generation who work for The Institution have learned, are learning, or intend to learn how to survive and thrive as members of The Institution. You use what connections you can to gain entry. Once in, you play your cards right, carry out your assignments diligently, and ask no smart-ass questions. It works. You now have job security, with prospects, possibly for the rest of your life. You just do not question authority. Not that different from being in the SAF, is it? I used to smile at first at young ‘interns’ who volunteered their time at Meet the People Sessions, but it did not take long to realize what they were working towards. The smart ones are learning lessons in survival and seeing just how far their efforts will carry them. And for quite a few, it has been good. The Institution keeps on growing. Using this strategy, The Party as Institution has spread over most of the Island through all Government and government related agencies and corporations. It is THE employer for a select group.

   The population is now predictable. Trained into tacit submission, they will nod in agreement, speak in acceptable terms, say a lot of good sounding stuff when required to, and subsequently even be awarded with accolades. They have learnt to watch the optics carefully. We have a lot of this. But concrete stuff that can make a difference? Ah, we have to be careful with that. The Pofmatic eyes and ears of big brother are watching. So we have lots of talkers. But to push for productive change that will make a difference and very possibly upset someone’s durian-cart in the process? Well, that would just be plain unwise. It may bring you up against your boss for starters, and then soon enough face-to-face with government policy and its creators. And not many want to go there. Certainly not the newbies. They are having a great time with job security and will not rock that boat, from laborers and PMET’s turned citizens to the hired foreign academic professionals who purportedly teach critical thinking at the Universities!

  And so we have everything on a sliding scale, from denial and dependency and apathy in varying combinations – all in relation to what the government leadership says and does, right down to our inherent ‘kiasu’ anxiety that gets thrown into the mix of why we struggle to see, accept and respond to what is happening to us, that last aspect being especially right for arguments that invoke risk and fear. And our civil ‘compact’? The government will take care of you, whatever they decide that means - at any given time, and will make all the decisions that will determine your life, for better or worse. There will be opportunities for feedback, not that they will make much difference.

But look back at the section on Jothie Rajah’s work and the mention of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA).⁹ Some writers have mentioned ethnic conflict. But as I said, there really wasn’t much ethnic conflict at all, other than an attempt at importing some. And an attempt is not the same as saying our local folk cannot get along because of religious and ethnic differences and so behavior must be regulated or there will be trouble and we won’t have the means to control it if we are not adequately prepared. Sigh. What a mouthful of a sentence. 28 words? But no ethnic conflict happened in those days, and an Act to ‘maintain religious and ethnic harmony’ was not needed¹⁰ The people already had it.

And they kept social distances fairly respectfully, though there was a lot of nicknaming and cheeky ethnic and dialect mudslinging in the early days, from ‘babi’ to ‘keling-kia’ to ‘ teo chew nang, kah-chng ang ang. It had a playful side to it. Babi is Bahasa Melayu for pig, something the Malays threw out at pork eating folk, mostly the Chinese, since Muslims wouldn’t eat pork but it was a popular meat with the Chinese! A favorite Chinese term for the Indians was ‘keling-kia’, referring to the little bells(them bells made little tinkling ‘kling-kling sounds – they jingled as you moved) Indian jewelry was adorned with, and the Teochew-nang thingy was one example of what the Hokkien dialect speaking Chinese did to the Teochew dialect speaking folk – referring to the Teochew as red-assed folk. How they figured that one out I can’t quite remember! Very colorful, very cheeky, a lot of laughing at the other, like that neat little Malay phrase ‘ketawa-kan dia! i.e. laugh at him; but we had gotten past it by the time national service kicked in! How come? Well, we grew and bonded some as a community!

   Indeed, the MRHA was passed in 1990 – some 25 years after the 1964 so called ‘ethnic riots’! Why such a long wait? Because there was no need for it. But in 1987 it seemed that government policy on certain issues could be improved. Priests had not responded to public policy ever, and this was a first. And it was contextual and pastoral, not a theological or ecclesiological position that called for political or social action. But because Christians were mostly well educated, financially stable, and had a sense of right and wrong, if they were not in the government’s corner by default, it could cause problems? As such, that possibility was quickly addressed with an Act that prevented religious leaders and church pastors from saying anything critical of the government. And what has the Act done to maintain religious harmony? Or promote it even? Not much, unless you want to count a few critics that have been hauled up and accused of racism and such. Recently, a rapper who railed against racism was arrested and accused of being a racist.¹¹ Effective, no?

   Ironically, it is government policy that has encouraged new racism in Singapore. When you upset reasonably accepted demographics, this happens, especially in a small place. For starters, CECA¹², the Singapore-India Economic free trade agreement, has allowed for large numbers of Indian laborers and management into Singapore, and while folk have made comments about Indians walking 6 abreast in the Little India part of town, so that you got a blackout or brownout effect, it is not fun to experience unmanaged crowding in a small space. Home at Christmas and invited to a dinner Theatre show on New Year’s Eve, we had to struggle to get into the venue at MBS because ground level was packed, literally, with shoulder-to-shoulder Indian workers who were gathering to watch the fireworks. No fun having to push your way through and watch out for the Mrs. Where was crowd control?

But this is how issues get out of hand. Unmanaged and out of control when they need not be.  You cannot have too many people in a small house. Everyone knows that. Crazy things happen. Small spaces being used for sex everywhere, I guess. And the side-effects rub off. The other side of it is just as bad, because we have lots and lots of PRC folk who are Mandarin speaking only but work in the city, selling laksa at MBS for example but not knowing what laksa leaf is (?) or doing photography booth work at ICA when they only speak Mandarin, so that dialect speakers and native Malays and Tamils are left out in the cold. Even worse when local PMETs (local acronym for professionals, managers et al) lose job opportunities to foreign nationals who come in, find work (prearranged?) for themselves and who soon enough have citizenship, like the new citizen I met in a PAP MPS session, accent and all (see Appendix L for this story!) local born folk get a kind of ‘ Where’d this guy come from?’ feeling. And now he’s telling me how I should live and what I can or cannot do?’ And resentment builds. All this is on the PAP’s plate. Building an Institution is a heavy task and it can only sustain a positive identity and function by taking care of all of its people! And saying you made an error and reversing a decision in response to public feedback takes guts – honesty and integrity, because it shows you didn’t know what you were doing in the first place.   

   Unless and until the PAP changes its style and places the ordinary citizen first, support levels will keep changing. Knowing this and not wanting to lose their dominant position, the Party has worked at maintaining their electoral advantages and also at building their support base. We have many new citizens, and on interestingly favorable terms, like not having to do national service.  The most obvious statement on this has come from academic Eugene Tan. Speaking on mandatory national service for males in Singapore. In the context of a TV show on the Presidential Election, he said:

“…if we start to differentiate between citizens, whether you’re born here or not born here, whether you’ve done NS or not done NS, I think we are going into very fine distinctions. And the reality is Singapore continues to be an immigrant society”¹³

 Not a very good argument. But in 2017 Eugene was singing a different song.  He teaches at Singapore Management University and so works for The Institution. Writing for the local Business Times, he made some distinctive statements on NS (national service), like this one…

 ‘that national service is no longer just a rite of passage for young men. It impacts intimately on the economy, providing a security umbrella. It is integral to patriotism and nation building, and remains as crucial if not as important as it was in 1967.¹⁴

 Contradictory, no? Perhaps he will tell you that the requests were different, came from different quarters, and so he tailored his responses accordingly. It’s just standard academic work expected of you, don’t have to take it too seriously? That’s always been a very useful political consultancy tactic. Interesting comments on national service as a rite of passage, and a focus on its significance, both for defense and as a prerequisite for meaningful and committed citizenship. However, all new male citizens are not required to serve national service. The contradictions persist. The time served is key, not so much the business of shouldering a weapon as a recruit. Reasonably healthy people can serve in peacetime in any number of ways. But the service requirement is known, and it is ignored at cost.

Where democratic voting processes exist, and people are determined to address contradictions, there is hope for a more equitable society. It just requires a change of direction from one in which the people serve the government to one in which there is shared and empowered vision, by all and for all. Very possible in a small, shared space. We can do it. We will need to get past any kind of a dominant ethnic sense first, forget CMIO, and conflate the distinctions so poorly made.

   This is the democratic dream. And it starts with true democratic conversation, not partisan conversation on any one position. Just a focus on what needs to be fixed and to work for a consensus on how it can get fixed. Not because of charismatic leaders leading powerful parties. But because ordinary folk like Simon and Jesse continue to say what they are saying -  that everyone must get involved in the issues that affect all of us, even though they might not want to! As has been said for a long time, ignorance is surely bliss! But we need citizen participation in a one-on-one talking-with-each-other experience. There is no other way because the institutionalized political party has made options difficult. Like one-man assembly persecution. We will have to unmake those.

   Citizens who are unquestioningly loyal to the PAP government have burdened their fellow citizens.  Those who understand the current situation for what it is, find it hard to believe that there are others who support the government without reservation. They have come up with various explanations. But perhaps the most obvious one goes back to what Chan Heng Chee said many years ago. From there, the control, the institutionalization, the high salaries, the continuing contradictions - are all acceptable to the ethnic Chinese who see Chinese political leadership through an emperor perspective. Many will say this is not true, citing the support Tharman has been given. But they ignore one critical point. In the mind of institutionalized folk, Tharman’s ability and past history in dealing with financial management is an extremely strong point that serves him well from their perspective. He is allowable, because there is no real executive power in his hands. This is perhaps the best current example of how dominant ethnicity will use marginalized ethnicity for its own purposes. It depends.

   This is where the tacit understanding that exists in paternalistic authoritarianism between the government and the people comes in.  As long as the government does its part, the people will accept their leaders and remain compliant. But what has been happening steadily over the last several decades is that the government has ceased to do its part well, and resentment is building steadily.

   However, if the Party is correct in their strategy and the new citizen party support ratio numbers are in their favor, they will maintain a majority, with support from new citizens together with a modicum of the old faithful. That balance between Singapore born citizens and new ones is not far from tipping point. And the electoral system, functioning as it does under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office, will fulfill its assigned functions. As systems go, this one has been in the ruling Party’s favor forever. And the average Singapore born citizen? Is just about ready to be farmed out, it would appear. Nothing comes easy for the average local person anymore. To live in Johore Bahru in Malaysia is becoming more of a reality for many, just as eating and shopping.  And their leaving Singapore appears not to be a concern for the Party. As one Minister once said, ‘if you don’t like it, you are free to leave.’¹⁵ And that is the option. Easily said, with overtones of easy replacement. Having institutionalized itself, it would appear that whomever constitutes the party at any given time does not feel nor acknowledge that they work for the people. They say they do, loudly and often, but therein seems to lie yet another contradiction.

 

 

Ch 11 excerpt

 

11.3 Managing Presidential ethnicity

Remember the sequence? After the September 2015 election the government set up a Constitutional Commission to work on aspects of the Elected Presidency. In 2016 Dr Tan Cheng Bock, once a PAP stalwart, declared his intention to run again for the Presidency, having lost in his first attempt by the small fraction of a few thousand votes. Against this backdrop, the Commission was to work on 

1.a mechanism to safeguard minority representation,

2. qualifying criteria for candidacy,

3. the role of the Council of Presidential Advisors.

The final decisions made by the government showed significant intent i.e. ¹⁶

1.       The requirement for public service and public sector experience stayed constant at a 3 year period; if it had been extended to 6, as the Commission had proposed, Madam Halimah, with 4.5 years of service, would not have qualified.

2.       The ‘shareholder equity’ requirement was increased to 500 million, effectively disqualifying the only 2 aspirants from the private sector; no one other than Madam Halimah remained.  That requirement did not apply to her. Neat, huh?

3.       Minority representation was ensured by the Commission’s proposal that an election would be reserved for a specific race if said race had not had an elected president from amongst their race for the last 5 presidencies; but given the government’s count off starting from President Wee Kim Wee, the next Presidential Election would then be a reserved one – just for the Malays; Sounds fine, except that only a former PAP public servant was left.¹⁷

For the general reader, Madam Halimah was a long-standing PAP Member of Parliament and Speaker of the House. She resigned to run for the Presidency and was endorsed by the Prime Minister. Personally, I knew her to be a lovely lady. But that’s not the point.

There are several salient observations here:

The government counted off on their decision for a minority Presidency using the term of President Wee Kim Wee as the first elected president; except that he was not elected but appointed. Further, in Singapore, the race and the ethnicity of an infant is determined by that of the male parent, as determined by the law. Madam Halimah’s father was an Indian. How then could she be identified as an ethnic Malay? By government definition she was an Indian. Nevertheless, each candidate had to be race certified as Malay by a select Committee, which Committee accepted Madam Halimah’s statement that she was indeed Malay. ¹⁸   More ‘Aha!’ moments!

As there was only 1 candidate remaining, there was no election to be held and Madam Halimah became President by default. Also, Prime Minister Lee said that he had followed these lines because it was the right thing to do. If so, then the question comes up of why doing ‘the right thing’ had taken so long – some 47 years to be exact, counting from the appointment of the 1^st President, Yusof Ishak. ¹⁹

Further, the decision to count the elected presidency from Wee Kim Wee meant ignoring Mr. Ong Teng Cheong as the 1^st Elected President. The people knew that history to be a fact. The government did it anyway. Who could POFMA them?

And finally, it is significant that this ‘reserved’ Presidency prevented Dr. Tan Cheng Bock from making a second run for Presidential office. ²⁰ From such a perspective, the intent of the move seems clear. It was carried out as formulated and vetted by the Party and then passed through Parliament. No wonder in Singapore the distinction between rule of law and rule by law has become a nebulous one!  Just as a political party has been operating for some time now as an Institution?  Voila, it is now time for a Malay President, and if determinations are needed to decide suitable ethnicity for Malay Presidential election purposes, we will make it so. Indeed. Shades of Star Trek?

Local feeling about all of this is nicely summarized in a Facebook comment made in response to an article in the Straits Times entitled ‘President Halimah a powerful symbol of unity who has been an inspiration to all Singaporeans: PM Lee.’ ²¹ and the comment…

‘This is, with all due respect, balderdash; and I would ask our Prime Minister not to foist his narrative on the rest of us. After Wee Kim Wee, the office of President has been relegated to a retirement reward for yeoman service to the PAP government. I’ll name the Presidents: Ong Teng Cheong, S A Nathan (though he was never a Member of Parliament), Tony Tan, Halimah, and now Tharman;

1.       She was a long term and non-troublesome PAP MP

2.       The Constitution allows a former Speaker of Parliament to be President (how a Speaker has special qualities eludes me)

3.       Her intended opponents were disqualified

4.       She was permitted to adopt a new race to stand in a divisive and non-unifying race based presidency.

I see nothing inspiring about this and it must be held against her that she did not stand again in an open contest. ²²   

No need to say more.

Ch 10 excerpt 2 of 2 The cardboard elderly...

 

The cardboard collecting elderly

are everywhere to be seen in Singapore, painfully and slowly struggling to collect cardboard, to earn a few cents a day. It is neither fulfilling nor rewarding. Yet,

there have been attempts to say, whenever such incidents have been reported or complained about, that we talked to this elder person or that elderly person and they told us that they were only doing it to pass the time and earn a little bit of money. Or the other answer – oh, they said they were doing it for exercise! Is that really credible?  Does that make sense at all? Or is it just an absurd insulting and demeaning excuse of an explanation?

Let’s look at what then Minister and one-time SAF General Tan Chuan Jin did with this one. Note that the argument he presented has been analyzed and shredded in chapter seven’s example No 3. No need to repeat it here. It’s already dead and buried. No hope for it. He made a statement about cardboard collection and exercise and was criticized for it. Then, as the MCCY (MCCY = Minister for Culture, Community & Youth), he got the Youth Wing to take on a project of sorts, to prove his statement had been an accurate one. Didn’t really succeed.  And we ended up with a misleading article that originated from MCCY’s volunteer Youth Corp.²⁴ Their findings were insufficiently representative and weakly argued. But that is how poor statistical work is done.

Most of the elderly who are financially stable have good social lives; they visit with children, grandchildren, relatives, friends. They go out and eat. If they want exercise, they join a group that exercises. You can see many of the ’exercising elderly’ in the morning at almost every HDB estate. Those who are comfortable will go to a club and exercise, or just go out and spend money, be it over shopping, at dinner engagements with friends, or at the Marina Bay Sands Complex with all of its Casino activity. Or they will just walk a little down the lane on their own if they wish to. Many of them look askance at ‘exercise’. They will tell you they have enough exercise because they go out to dinner often enough! And as for the cardboard collectors themselves, they have no desire to take on manual labor, which is hard work for someone of old age. They are very clear about this -  I asked them about it.³² And some laughed. ‘Where did you get that from? Siao nang!’  (Hokkien for crazy person) My Hokkien is still reasonably good, and so is my Mandarin. I can speak the language, and that ability is appreciated and gets responses! Hey,  I grew up learning how to curse in Portuguese from my Eurasian friends!  

A relevant incident is the one where a foreigner reported an elderly cardboard collector as being at risk because she was out collecting cardboard in rainy weather, and there were slippery, wet road surfaces to deal with.²⁵ Back came the stock answer again, ‘oh, we asked her. She says she is collecting cardboard to pass the time and get some exercise.’ Right, add insult to injury. Treat them as stupid as well, in their old age. Take away a little more dignity. But that wasn’t enough on this one. The reporter was also told that ‘she is visited by PM Lee’s staff often to check up on her well-being.” Well, we don’t really know that. It was just reported as such i.e. she was reported to have said this. So, if it’s not true, the poor lady is a liar as well. A little too obvious, don’t you think? The Prime Minister’s staff must have a lot of time on their hands. And why is this one lady being singled out by the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) for such attention?

But the lady in question had perhaps said nothing, since everything had been done in 3^rd person reported speech. This is how the approach seems to work. Give ‘em a story to keep ‘em quiet; let’s not have people raise a ruckus about it. Control the narrative. Sure, they are old. And many of them are unsteady, like the poor old ladies who are bent over, struggling with loads of dishes at food centers. So heartbreaking, and very maddening. I hate that. But speak with them. They will tell you there is no dignity in collecting cardboard or collecting dishes. They just don’t have a choice. The only dignity gained is when that small quantity of cash is paid to them. They get to say I did this myself. Didn’t ask anyone for help.

Some useful information on the reality of this situation did come from an article written by journalist Zalhan Mohd Yusof, who went out and collected cardboard to see what it was like. He found out and shared his findings. It was a mean and tough experience.²⁶ The unmistakable conclusion is – you cannot whitewash this, white uniform or otherwise! Enough with cheap excuses and feeble explanations. This is what our elderly do to survive while we look the other way. A reasonable allowance would put an end to it. A nice home for the elderly would be even better, be it a converted disused primary school or a new home in Johore, modeled on a kampong village! It would possibly even bring back a little of the feel of old times.

Aging is part of family culture and only in a minor capacity part of the national economy.  To speak of an ‘aging’ population in economic terms is nothing more than to give voice to an ill-defined attempt at describing economic limits. It really is a declaration that the ‘work force’ constitutes of nothing more than the able-bodied persons of the State, and the young (helpless, but potential workers!) and the old (equally helpless, and now with zero or low potential supposedly) are nothing but burdens. And who takes care of them? Oh, family of course. And how broadly or narrowly is this creature called ‘family” supported by government policy in housing, health, education, and so on?

Every population always has an aging component. The reality behind a wicked phrase like ‘aging population’ is that old folk are seen to be an economic liability, and that is so wrong! For they soon become seen as a societal liability, and then a family liability. And who cared for you when you were young? We are all aging. It is not a liability. We just need to be better prepared for it, and I don’t mean by topping up CPF. To be described in such terms as ‘aging’ is demeaning, delegitimizing, and a betrayal of those who have worked hard. Even more, it is a denial of what is owed to whom. Choose your terms of discourse carefully. That’s what we have academics for! Unfortunately, too many of them tend to say what pleases the boss. Ever the dilemma of the scribe. Don’t think. Just write as you’re told to. Every generation of parents tries hard to build for the next. And when the building effort is over, what happens then? They are now an old bunch of dobbins to be put out to pasture? The old were once young. To give meaning to existence requires understanding the many stages of the human condition; the young and the old parallel; for in both, we require care.

We seem to be missing out on that one to a disturbing degree. The tragic case of the little one who died from abuse is one more sad example. In a small place that is purportedly a rich one, this should not be the case. Must do better.

And here's the example I was referring to :

3.The normal perception that all cardboard collectors are people who are unable to take care of themselves financially is not true. There will be some who do this as their main source of income. Some do so to supplement what they have. Some prefer to earn extra monies, treat it as a form of exercise and activity rather than being cooped up at home. They do this to remain independent, so that they can have dignity and not have to ask their families for help.

 

Always settle issues of clarity first, before moving on to structural improvements. Here, the generalization of ALL cardboard collectors gets subdivided into different ‘kinds’ by need: main income; supplementary; extra monies - isn’t this ‘supplementary’, restated? and the now infamous ‘exercise’! The writer intends to say it is not absolutely true but needs to go beyond stating the case to proving it. Be careful with style. When you need to be precise, watch out for common errors of style that create ambiguity instead.

1.      Perception is never a generalized ‘normal’ in form, although it may be common to all; it is always subjective....

2.      ‘Exercise’, is almost always voluntary and is done for a physical ROI – improved health. That does not apply in these cases. There are any number of voluntary exercises that can be done outdoors to avoid feeling ‘cooped up’ at home. That these folk would opt for cardboard collection instead is illogical.  It cheekily and perhaps somewhat stupidly actually claims that they seek self-punishment. I could not find any old folk in an entire new town who recognized the ‘exercise’ value of cardboard collection. They all laughed. Sarcastically. The argument fails reality here.

3.      ‘supplement’ carries overtones of support and is needed; ‘extra’ is not.

4.      Line four would be strengthened if it read ...treat it as a form of economically profitable exercise.....

The paragraph is considerably weakened in the last sentence when rationale is attempted but fails because it is self-contradictory   i.e. They do this

a.      to remain independent

b.      so they can have dignity

c.       not to have to ask their families for help.

If they do this to remain independent, then it is no longer a matter of choice. They are constrained by circumstances to do so. Their independence is already at risk. It is not an elective option. Not a want. But a need. The argument then proceeds to go downhill once it gets to dignity. Why? Simply because there is nothing dignified about collecting cardboard. Might be okay when you’re young, but it sure ain’t when you are older and bent over and lack strength. It is demeaning, humiliating, and in a prosperous economy, should not exist.

A good example is found in the elderly who work in security. Twelve hour shifts with 2 hours spent traveling to work and a further 2 hours traveling home, for a good many. Go with old uncle Simon – who takes the MRT to Jurong West – then takes the bus to the end of the line; then walks more than a mile to the guard post. You’re way out where Shell and other good people are! He reverses his steps and repeats the ritual in the evening. Are you kidding me? Nope. What does that leave you with? Not much. Maybe six hours of sleep for an old man if you are fortunate to be working near home. Most are not.

What does the writer mean here? The writer wants to say that to maintain their dignity, they need a certain level of independence. That independence is facilitated by having sufficient income. Then they can enjoy the dignity and independence of not having to ask for $ help from anyone. However, that is ironically achieved at the price of their dignity! So, in a parallel to number one, we have here a “they do x in order to get y, but where x removes y!” Okay, something very wrong with the helicopter-hair assumption. Shoot ahead to the section on SAFOS and you’ll get what I mean.

I collect cardboard to earn $ so that I can maintain my dignity and independence by not having to ask anyone for $ help. However, I have realized that in doing so I have already lost what little dignity I had left in the first place. I guess it’s a trade-off? Conclusion: the writer has inadvertently negated the argument. Try a rewrite....

Some older folk collect cardboard to earn income, but not all of them do this because of financial need. Some do. Others just don’t have enough pocket money, so a little extra income helps. Either way, they do it because it helps them be totally independent and not have to ask anyone for financial help.

Now there are no contradictions, and there is no argument. Just a neutral statement.

What did we do? We took dignity out of it! How touching! Effective argument? Nope. Effective writing? Nope. 

 

Ch 10 excerpt 1 of 2 : Meritocracy?

 

Ch 10

Policy in Context

 

‘Distributed responsibility is the problem. One person gives the order, another carries it out. One can say they didn’t pull the trigger, the other that they were just doing what they were told, and everyone lets themselves off the hook.’¹

 We continue to focus on issues that create content for writing and argument in Singapore. How we understand and respond to events that affect us make up the context of our everyday life issues. In Singapore, information and meaning has long been interpreted and presented by one single source – the government. Easy to do when you have total control of information systems. But in a growing and wealthy young nation-state that is maturing in an increasingly interconnected world, such control can ultimately be self-defeating for the country.Let’s look at how some of these controls have worked out.

 Meritocracy

has been called the Singapore dream; a main principle of government; a state sponsored narrative; and, more formally stated, an ideological resource for justifying authoritarian government and its pro-capitalist orientations, with thanks to Kenneth Paul Tan for that last one!² As generally understood in Singapore, meritocracy has sounded great as a fair shake for all. It claims to offer mobility across inherent and unfair givens, so that in spite of such factors a good hard worker has a fair chance to climb the ladder of success, regardless of ethnic differences and socio-economic background. Unfortunately, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. How come?  

An idea can sound wonderful; and then fail, abysmally. No matter how much we talk about system and structure, it is the people involved who sustain a system and who may not allow for its revision and improvement. Easy to blame a system, tough to take it on. You come up against its defenders and may find that they’re defending their interests.  Systems are often imperfect, but they can be tinkered with and improved - imagineering, as a friend once said to me. Use your imagination and engineer your way there! But the people in control are making the choices, and the choices reflect their values, associations, and preferences. They may claim that the system is insufficient, but it is they who often fall back on it and support it, as is expedient.

Our 1^st Generation leadership talked of meritocracy as a civil service principle - that every officer in the civil service should feel that he could get right to the top if he was sufficiently ‘meritorian’ and that public servants should advance on the basis of merit, and not connections. Thus spoke S. Rajaratnam, Lee Kuan Yew and C. V. Devan Nair in their time; Devan Nair spoke of Singapore’s outstanding characteristic as one of high social mobility, not an aristocracy of pedigree, but one of talent.³ OK. But what happened?

Let’s examine a key policy move as an example  – promotion in the Singapore Armed Forces (the SAF), based on Shell Corporation’s staff appraisal and promotion system of current estimated potential (CEP) and a combination of helicopter vision, analytical power, imagination and reality. (HAIR) .⁴ But who estimates potential and how are evaluations done?

Before Goh Chok Tong was chosen to follow Lee Kuan Yew as Prime Minister, he was CEO of Singapore’s national shipping line, Neptune Orient. In later years that position was assigned to an ex-SAF General. Then the line began to sink, as it were, and it was sold to a French conglomerate who were able to float it profitably, in a year’s time. The General who was appointed CEO was a product of a CEP & HAIR practice but was unable to keep the Company afloat. Next, the General was made CEO of Singapore Press Holdings. Unfortunately, that did not do well either and needed a government bail-out. In achieving ‘generalness’, George Yeo served all of 43 days as a ‘General’ and Lee Hsien Loong some 83 days as a ‘Brigadier General’ before leaving for the civil service.⁵ Ummmm. In my opinion, such a brief amount of ‘experience’ amounts to little more than a paper ‘General.’ Leadership attributed and delegated, undoubtedly. But what would result? Why was holding a high-ranking military appointment seen as a source of all-rounder capability? How did such a policy begin?   

Samuel Ling’s ‘An Aristocracy of Armed Talent’ uses a small sample of SAFOS Officer data (Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholars) but it does provide enough information to draw some useful conclusions.⁶ For one, Ling gives some history on the emergence of the ‘scholar’ officer as a government investment in leadership potential, where candidates would work in the Armed Forces and then be transferred into the civil service. Great crossover functionality. The ‘scholar’ notion possibly derives from the historical tradition of scholars in ancient China who took state examinations and were given ranked civil positions per their level of achievement. But that was history. The situations differ. Has it been a success?  

Leadership in the armed forces performed well in its first two decades, and then slowly began to dissipate. Winston Choo headed the Armed Forces for almost 20 years with no issues, no problems. But after that, trends changed. Annual promotion exercises ensured quick upward mobility for many. Senior rank came easily. And senior officers were promoted quickly. It became smooth sailing to reach the rank of General in peacetime with no combat experience, training exercises notwithstanding. And as the Armed Forces grew, the manpower establishment in use mapped out rank as provided for by position. Makes me think of our Ministry of Manpower, as opposed to a Ministry of Labor. Presentation and image (optics, these days!) required more than having a Captain serve as Chief of Navy. We soon had Rear Admirals. And so on. No question that they did their training and successfully fulfilled their assigned posting requirements. But promotions were rapid. Hence the number of Generals. None of them stayed in one appointment for very long.⁷ Here also began the ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ syndrome that the current government perpetuates. Some have called it job rotation so that there is no chance to build and develop, whether in skills, relationships or both.  

 It makes you wonder about that conversation a long time ago that Sam Ling makes reference to, when Goh Keng Swee, then Defence Minister, and Lee Onn Pong, then Head of MINDEF, (the Ministry of Defence) talked about a possible glut of senior officers and how such folk would need to be moved into the civil service.⁸ That was a long time ago, and whether that notion has remained in the ranks of our politicians, I can’t say. But the patterns are clear. Rapid promotion and equally rapid transfer to the civil service.

Nevertheless, Sam Ling also says that military personnel must be highly compensated because their skillset is non-transferable. And that makes no sense to me. What would be the point of a transfer into the civil service then? There seems to be no reason given for such a conclusion in his work. A cross-referenced article on his book says that ‘the book also notes that military personnel must be highly compensated because their skillset is non-transferable, but apparently not non-transferable enough to prevent employment in government roles or affiliated entities.’⁹ This inadvertently demonstrates the risk of transferring folk who are untrained and unskilled into situations where specific non-military skills are required from day one. Meritocracy? Doesn’t seem like it. Seems like these transfers from the military to the civil service were made at huge risk and at substantial cost  over a fairly broad spectrum.

What is clearly stated is the expectation amongst the political leadership that these were all SAFOS candidates, chosen from select schools, and once in the SAF, had been sent abroad to return as overseas trained ‘scholars’, the cream of the crop. Expected to be promoted beyond the rank of Colonel. Able to do anything asked of them. Good to believe that, perhaps, but what was it based on? Appears to be a mix of personal and academic preference, as versus a genuine appraisal of potential. Reality has a way of causing expectations to hit the dust!

So, in the business of making ex-military Generals into civil leaders, CEP and HAIR didn’t quite deliver for the government. This makes our Samuel ask at one point ‘How can an individual be identified in their late teens and groomed for a position they would hold only in their late 30s or early 40s?  Does this not contradict the oft mentioned practice of meritocracy?¹⁰

Yes, it does. It demonstrates preference. And it indicates that this notion of meritocracy is as much political narrative as anything else. There is no such system. If there is, show the philosophy that undergirds it, or how the system was created, who created it, how it works in different structures and how it is applied therein. Did we work this out, point by point in Parliament, so its constituent parts were clearly settled? Otherwise, a quote Sam Ling refers to on CEP is prophetic – ‘CEP is not an exact science; it is subjective and depends on who fights for who’ (sponsorship!) and ‘there is no greater influence on CEP than the level of education.’ So we set ourselves up then. And another observation on all this kicks in from another reference quote – ‘scholars are smart but is it merely academic smart?’¹¹ A very fair question. Not very sharply stated, though. What it implies is that while there may be some academic knowledge, the point at which the rubber hits the road is where theory needs to blossom into successful application and execution, in working practice. Sadly enough, the immediate downside in the SAF itself is the colloquial terminology used to describe officers, which uses ‘scholar’- officer versus ‘farmer’ officer or non-scholar distinctions! Wonder where that came from?

Sam Ling also tries to identify ‘who came from where’ by looking at SAFOS awards – SAF overseas scholarships; these were dominated by RI - Raffles Institution students mostly (44%), with a little from Hwa Chong JC (Junior College) and National JC. What of the rest? (Anyone ever ask how come RI can still use the word ‘institution’ when that is purportedly a gazetted word?)¹² Apparently, students from other JC’s didn’t quite make the grade. What grade, and how graded, and who decided? Meritocracy, huh? Good questions. While the General who served as the CEO of NOL might have come from an ‘exclusive’ school, and might have been a good student, and a preferred candidate for making General, none of these ‘pre-conditions’ guaranteed the ability to deliver! So, what is it really? Perhaps demonstrated reality down the road shows the truth of what the thing is?¹³ Kakinang? (Chinese Hokkien dialect, mixed with Malay = the singlish phrase ‘kaki-nang; or (kaki/foot; nang/people) foot people ie all of the same footprint or so….i.e. a specific group with common identifiers.

The Home Affairs & Law Minister Kasi recently said that in Singapore we prefer some training before a Ministerial appointment and referred to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, DPM Lawrence Wong and Minister Desmond Lee as examples. But is it really a matter of training or of having the right connections? ¹⁴ One is son to the first Prime Minister. Lawrence Wong served as Lee Hsien Loong’s Principal Private Secretary. And Desmond Lee’s father is Lee Yock Suan, former MP and Cabinet Minister. And what of the ex-Generals who were given civil appointments – what training did they receive for such appointments? How many ended up in the LTA (Land Transport Authority)? And how did Tan See Leng become a full Minister straight off, post-election? And then start commenting about the social compact as though he knew what he was talking about? Ah, but that was an exception, I’m sure. The contradictions come quick and fast. What is being said cannot be easily accepted at face value. Not anymore.

The Education Minister once bemoaned the fact that meritocracy was having a hard time, as he said, ‘…in the last few years meritocracy has taken on negative overtones due to its association with elitism, and there has been an ongoing debate over social inequality and stratification in society.’¹⁵ Spoken like a true principal private secretary. And corrected very bravely by one honest and forthright citizen, who said……’the answer to why meritocracy in Singapore has gone wrong and why faith in meritocracy has weakened among the people is because the spouses of ministers and military men with zero private sector experience are appointed to lead GLCs.’¹⁶ (a GLC is a government linked corporation).

Once again, the official narrative does not fit the experienced reality. Given the reach of the Internet, data is easily fact-checked. And Kenneth Jeyaretnam has repeated his concerns over spousal appointments and undisclosed salary figures often enough so that most have heard about it, denial notwithstanding.¹⁷ No one challenges it. Different narratives exist, and it is a matter of accepting or rejecting such offerings.

But we are pointed to a significant preferential reality – one that comes out in support of a close circle of political acquaintances, and so we have a Prime Minister, his spouse, and Ministers – children of connected persons – Ministers, Principal private secretaries and such, in Hsien Loong, Ho Ching his wife who headed Temasek, Desmond Lee, Lawrence Wong, Grace Fu, Heng Swee Keat. There is no problem with such appointments if meritocracy is upheld as an efficiency principle i.e. if you can handle the instrument you take the solo in the concert; if you can’t, beware the flat notes and the weak delivery….. costly errors to a performer that badly affect the audience, the promoter, and the experience that has been invested in; here, to the taxpayer.

Like that marvelous incident of a ‘high profile’ rubbish bin center that cost $410,000.00 for consultancy fees (ah, it was being built for a superstar…?) and for its construction a further $470,000.00. MCCY – the Ministry of Culture, Community & Youth, did acknowledge that there should have been “more detailed documentation to explain clearly the scope and complexity of the consultancy service.”¹⁸ Scope and complexity? As Bugs Bunny said, it is to laugh. What degree of scope and complexity could possibly have applied? Most local employers would fire whomever in their Company incurred such costs with such reasoning! But perhaps loyalty covers all errors. Perhaps.

This is why politics is not about what’s said, but what’s done. It’s the outcome. We are surrounded by far too much ‘specialized knowledge’ and irrelevant ‘terms of discourse’. Experts who have created specialized terms and then act as though that gives them an advantage over us. Good policy must see good results. It’s what we end up with that works to the benefit of all. Isn’t that pragmatism? And if a few don’t get it, we can manage exceptions and make it up to them. Meritocracy, we can use. But those who make the decisions need to have a high commitment to fairness. Not a high commitment to loyalty to themselves, or to their leader. Meritocracy sounds great and we can get everyone to sing the song about it. But that does not make it true. What is happening keeps running along preferential lines.

 

An excerpt from Ch 9

 

PART III – History, interpretation, challenge

 

Ch 9

Policy in perspective: fine city, fine authority

This is my island in the sun, where my people have toiled since time begun…

Harry Belafonte

As we leave our analysis of local writing styles and move into the political history of how we got started, we now begin that difficult struggle of moving from thinking hard and writing well into  acting decisively! But we must first recount what was happening in the setting up of a British colony in East Asia, to grasp how political power has come to work there. A little narrative….

Early Perspectives

Once upon a time, there was a British colony in Southeast Asia. There were quite a few around, and ‘Great’ Britain tried to manage its colonies efficiently because each was such a prize. The British worked hard at supervision and control. It made sense. You couldn’t have little colonialized buggers going off like Froggy did in that neat little story about The Wind In The Willows, could you? Totally independent, Frog set out to do his own thing! So the British had ‘Emergency Regulations’.¹ These regulations were preventive rules aimed at identifying miscreant frogs and rowdy buggers and were used to squash them before they could gain the upper hand. Or leg, as the case might be. After all, wouldn’t it be better if emergencies could be prevented altogether? Instability never helps trade and profit. Gets in the way of doing profitable business.

Colonial administrators imposed tough measures to maintain order and prevent insurrection.  They banned political meetings except during elections, and placed restrictions on meetings, processions, societies, and strikes. The Police were given special powers to search and close schools. Newspapers were required to obtain publishing licenses, which had to be renewed every year. Most importantly, new rules allowed colonial authorities to detain suspected subversives, without trial.  Sound familiar? Ah, well. We learn from bad examples, don’t we? They came up with these Regulations, and applied them like water to a fire, whenever it seemed useful to gain the upper leg. Or hand. Kind of like having a pig with a ring in its nose.  If you kept a strong piece of cord tied to that ring, piggy would be ‘distance challenged’ (!). Just had to yank on it every now and then. That’d work. Would keep the locals nicely in line.

Wasn’t exactly the Rule of Law, was it? Nope. Like all colonial powers, they touted the rule of law as applying to themselves and their affairs and concerns but used it in authoritarian fashion when it came to the natives. You know, us heathen, the lesser peoples of varying description; or various peoples of heathen description. It was justified, no? After all, these were just savages, as depicted in historical novels like James Michener’s ‘Hawaii’ a fairly accurate US version of missionary effort and its outcomes. It worked well. May not have been right and true, but it sure showed the natives who was boss. Great pig stickin’ stuff, as said by some in colonial India.

However, as the Colonies broke free and gained their independence, an interesting transformation occurred, human nature being what it is! The leaders who’d fought to free their people from colonial dominance realized just how useful these ‘emergency regulations’ could be for consolidating and augmenting their own newly minted powers.²Native leaders had condemned power in its varying forms and fought for their people. But once they’d won, anyone who disagreed with them or who posed a threat could quickly and easily be identified as a traitor to the country and be dealt with as such. All they had to do was to bring in the ‘emergency regulations’ and apply them. Useful inheritance, it would appear.³

Remember also that in those times, emerging leaders were always ahead of their own people. The elite amongst the natives, as it were. The ones who worked their way up to rubbing shoulders with their white masters, had learned the language, and could use it well. Some of them even became lawyers, trained in British legal methodology and British style, on British soil even, and in British ‘instituitions’. They even got to use British toilets. It just didn’t get any better. They were in the right place to tell the other natives – the ones with no education, that is, what true meaning really was. What good ‘pung sai chua’ (Chinese Hokkien dialect for ‘toilet tissue’) really felt like and how to use it. Or how true democracy, as they saw it, should work in their own backyards. And also deal with those who disagreed with them.⁴

And how had Emergency Regulations been practiced? One of the best ways was to identify probable cause. For example, one troublemaker with a cause to fight for, could multiply into many troublemakers with many causes, and that could be destabilizing in a little colony, where attap (dried coconut frond roofs) native huts might easily catch fire, amongst other things. And of course, with workers occupied in firefighting and such, upset the balance of trade. And what might such a cause be? Well, that depended on whatever the locals were unhappy about, whether it be Muslim believers who had to deal with pork fat in handling weaponry, or some such.⁵

Whatever it was, once you’d pointed the finger in an ‘Aha!’ moment, you gained the upper hand, the lower leg or both! Then, all you had to do, under Emergency Regulations, was to whisk them off somewhere, so that out of sight might become out of mind. And it worked, the colonial world over. It was called Detention without Trial i.e. without a fair and just trial. And in case there happened to be a Judge who believed in ‘justice for the natives’ it was often thought best to leave such decisions in the hands of the Governor General. And so it moved, from South Africa to India, to the Straits Settlements of Malaya, and on to Singapore.

Best of all, it was exquisitely satisfying to create and sustain an overarching narrative of fear that could be constantly referred to and thickly applied to justify whatever restraining action was needed. Vulnerability. Racial and religious harmony. National security. Foreign manipulative interests. All useful threats to be wielded as needed. Sound familiar?

In our case, this strategy is seen to begin even in the initial speech by our 1^st President, Inche′ Yusof Ishak, who addressed our precarious existence and all of the dangers we would have to look out for!⁶ Neat to have a native Malay warn us about the perils of living amongst other native Malay nations, no? Hadn’t we taken out sufficient insurance by choosing Malay as our national language and didn’t we have our National Anthem in Bahasa even? Nah, not good enough. Those were just tokens, I guess. We were a predominantly Chinese nation, and while that supposedly guaranteed economic success, we had troublemaker Indians and sarong culture Malays, and ‘others’, from Eurasians to Sikhs even!⁷ They all needed to come under one big umbrella. We would have to create such an umbrella and institutionalize it. Good for them, better for us.

Someone once came up with a t-shirt that said ‘Singapore – a ‘fine’ city!’ and it showed pictures of the many ways in which people were fined – for this, that, and the other!

And repeat offences could double the fine! Fine city indeed! Think for a moment of our political leadership and how it manages our quality of life these days. If reasoning in policy formulation is weak, our daily interaction with others provides opportunities to talk about why it has gone that way and how we can balance process and outcome. Making that happen depends on all of us, because a nation’s strength is just as dependent on its people as it is on its leadership. Just as with corporate profits!

In our history, back In 1976, one voice said that the leadership of the time was more than it claime to be.When she wrote ‘The Politics of One-Party Dominance’⁸ Chan Heng Chee said that:

1.      We have a party system which dominates without doing away with democratic symbols.

2.      The PAP has worked to significantly reduce competitive politics, allowing no place for the development of viable alternatives.

3.      The PAP government wields absolute influence over the news media.

4.      Although the population is ethnically plural, electoral divisions have never been linked to ethnic distribution ratios.

5.      The PAP government has blurred the clear distinctions that ought to exist between a political party and a national institution. This has allowed it to dissuade public criticism on matters of significance and depth.

6.      The stated intention of the party is to be recognized as a national political institution…one that will not limit its role to that of a mere political party.

7.      The key to the PAP’s ability to effectively become a central political institution may derive from the fact that 75% of the immigrant population of Singapore is made up of ethnic Chinese, and this group is amenable to accepting a Confucian and paternalistic form of government.

This has probably been the most accurate analysis of what has happened over the years in Singapore! But after making such statements, opportunities came calling, and Heng Chee spent years out of the country, voting on UN matters, hardly making a difference to the local situation at all. No follow-up to a marvelously challenging piece of work that was richly deserving of follow-up and critical to the peoples identity! ! You could teach an entire semester based on her initial work! But that didn’t happen. No one has ever dared to pick that one up! Note the key statements that accurately identified the ruling party’s intentions. And look for her neat statement about choosing to hunt with the hounds or run with the hares. It used to be on Wikipedia but doesn’t seem to be there anymore.

   Was this the beginning of Government leadership moving pre-determined goals into an adopted British parliamentary form, allowing for an emergent style that brought with it a limited concept of democracy? And is the authoritarian rule of law the outcome of all this? Has no.7 above changed at all, or is it why the majority still struggle to challenge authority which they themselves elected?