Musings on Merdeka : Part 2
A follow-up to my earlier entry on Musings on Merdeka.
No keris this time around?
By sheer coincidence, on the eve of our nation's Merdeka celebrations, IHT published a 3 part article probing the thoughts of Singapore's founder and current Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. At the same as I read our PM's Merdeka Day message, I can't help but contrast that to the "semi-paranoid-forever-running-scared-fight-for-survival" kind of thoughts that continues to fill the mind of the 84-year old Harvard educated lawyer, whose mind is showing no signs of slowing down with age. Yes I recognise that the context of the message is different, but still my point of concern is I have yet to hear conversations of this calibre among our Cabinet members. Particulary on the most historically significant date to our nation. Please do spare some time read the excerpts of IHT's interview with Harry Lee, the name LKY used to go by prior to his return to his homeland. I promise you that it is worth your time.
Yes, we may scoff and ridule Singapore for its authoritarian regime and for its governments regulation of the media and politically dissenting views. Like all things humanly, they do have their own short comings. In fact, I would never name LKY as a personal hero nor someone that I would give the same level of respect to Nelson Mandela, Martin Lurther King or Mother Teressa. But do LKY's policies on political and media freedom somewhat diminishes the significance of Singapore's achievement to turn what was once a malaria infested fishing village into what LKY calls a First world oasis in a Third world region. Mind you that they achieved that in less than 50 years, without all the natural resources that our government casually squanders away. Critics, especially those from UMNO Youth will argue that such comparisons are irrelvant as Singapore is too small, too small to be even considered a country. Presumably as an excuse for the current Cabinet members to justify the sad state our nation today, that they have a harder task of managing a larger country. But I believe the converse is equally true. A smaller nation will have less natural resources to rely on, and more importantly, a smaller population which will in turn translate into a smaller talent pool of brain power to transform the socio-economic landscape. Can anyone argue against that? How about KJ? Or our Keris waving minister? Notice that it is the Malaysians, constantly being fed distorted truths on Singapore via its equally government controlled media, are the ones who ridicule the tiny republic the most? While the rest of the world looks to Singapore as a model for sustainable development, city planning and administration? City councillors from China travel to Singapore every 3 months to learn about city planning and administration. I believe Confucious has a teaching about the perils of a fool allowing his own ego to get in the way of his own learning. I guess that says it all about our current political leaders - a fool. LKY might be a real dick in the eyes of many Singaporeans and its critics, but we would be a greater fool to not learn from their experience.
Our universities are more preoccupied with ensuring that girls adhere to a strict Islamic dress code rather than producing the next generation of job creators. At the upper echelons of our government administration, there is very little incentive for them to push forward towards achieving true national unity, a level of unity where it is no longer revelant to attach the word unity with racial. In fact, they stand to gain more by defending the current racial politics based power-sharing policy. Why change something that is allowing them to lead such comfortable lifes by squandering away my country's resources? They continue to sow seeds of racial mistrust and for the people to rely on their race based "elected" representatives to protect the interest of their community. In the grand scheme of all things greed and preservation of self-interest, what hope is there for us to attain true unity? Mind you the race-based power sharing policy is in itself a legacy of our British colonial fathers. And here we are celebrating 50 years of our Independence, claiming that we are free from our colonizers. What an irony isn't it?
On the other end of the spectrum, the Muslim majority and the socio-economic lower half of our population knows no better. They believe that a lack of moral and religious teachings is the source of all the corruption and problems with this country. They also tend to have an overly simplistic view that a return to the fundamentalist teachings of Islam will cure all the problems that plague our country. Lost among the wave of globalisation, these group of people tend to find comfort in the nostalgia of the glory days of Islamic civilizations, frequently romanticizing the conquests of the Sultans of yore and their majestic mausoleum. Nevermind the fact that as mentioned by Farish Noor, empires of the old age, whether Chinese, Indian or Muslim are often charactised by rampant class based exploitation and violent political hierarchies.
My point is that at both ends of our social spectrum, there is a worringly lack of urgency to address the happenings that are going on around us that could relegate our country further to the sidelines. We are barking up all the wrong tree to address what is wrong with this country. It is not the way our girls dress at UUM nor the way a certain rapper chooses to articulate his emotions on Merdeka day, that are the critical issues.
Lee Kuan Yew: First, to understand Singapore, you've got to start off with an improbable story. It should not exist . . . We haven't got the base, the space, the wherewithal. This is not Jamaica or Bahamas or Fiji. This is a little island strategically placed at the southernmost end of Asia connecting the sea routes between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.
Suddenly, we're on our own. (After being ejected in 1965 from Malaysia which followed the end of British colonial rule.) We have to defend ourselves. We have to make a living without a hinterland. We've got to have a Foreign Ministry. It's one thing running Hong Kong under British or Chinese protection; it's another matter governing tiny Singapore. You have to build an army, navy, air force, control and command systems, early warning, AWACs in the sky and so on.
So, can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn't depend on us alone.
If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn't exist. Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (laughs)
Like I said, there are many reasons for me not like LKY, but how I yearn for my own country leaders to have the same sort of pragmatism on our country's future. Oil money will run out soon. What will happen then?
To begin with we don't have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors, a homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.
We are migrants from southern China, southern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, before it was divided, Ceylon and the archipelago. So, the problem was, can we keep these peoples together?
The basis of a nation just was not there. But the advantage we had was that we became independent late. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid - racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon.
Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we'd be damned. So, there's no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We're all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.
IHT: What you're describing now is the basis for the formation of the type of country and society that you formed. And also, then, the types of criticisms that come toward Singapore - the answers may lie in these same . . .
Lee Kuan Yew: The answer lies in our genesis. To survive, we have to do these things. And although what you see today - the superstructure of a modern city, the base is a very narrow one and could easily disintegrate.
We are not Venice. We are not Athens with wide open spaces and far away neighbors. We are part of a world which is globalized, cheek by jowl with teeming millions in the region, populating at fast speed (laughs), right?
I guess this very much explains LKY's fallout with Tunku. His pragmatism will not allow him to agree to Tunku's race-based party politics power sharing formula. 40 years later, LKY's rhetorics to Tunku eeringly returns to haunt us in the ASLI's controversial report on Bumiputera equity by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee. I wonder if our memory-challenged public still remembers this sad turn of events that eventually led to Dr. Lim's resignation from ASLI.
There is no country in the world using a similar race-based approach to development. It is a formula built for disaster, especially for deserving groups of all races that are marginalised, and perhaps, especially more for the apparently favoured racial groups.
- Dr Lim Teck Ghee, former director of Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli)'s Centre for Public Policy Studies, former United Nations regional adviser and World Bank senior social scientist.
I started off by stating my reservations against LKY, against all forms of "idoltary" of the Singaporean government as though it offers a one-size fits all solution to all our woes. But reading this last piece of reply from LKY forced me to reluctantly give credit and my outmost respect for their foresight in ensuring the survival of Singapore and its people over the next 50 years. And that has to do with LKY's stance on the issue of global warming, overpopulation, ensuring continuation of law and order in the world and Singapore's responce to these challenges.
IHT: What about the risks to Singapore, what are the risks to Singapore in those scenarios?
Lee Kuan Yew: Oh! We are already in consultations with Delft in Holland to learn how we can build dikes!
IHT: Is that right?
Lee Kuan Yew: Oh, yes! Let's start thinking about it now.
IHT: Are you serious?
Lee Kuan Yew: We are. We are in consultations with them. It scares me because many world leaders have not woken up to the peril that their populations are in. This melting ice cap. I expected great consternation! What would happen to this earth? But, no. Has it triggered off emergency meetings to do something about this? Earth warming, the glaciers melting away? Never mind the Swiss Alps and skiing resorts having to manufacture snow. When the glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibet melt away, the Ganges, the Yangtze, the Irrawaddy, the Mekong, may dry up, except for rainy seasons. What will happen to the hundreds of millions? Where do they go? Where can they go? This will be a very serious problem.
IHT: Why don't you think the world isn't focusing on this?
Lee Kuan Yew: Because it's not an election issue. You know maybe 50 years, a 100 years, most of us would be dead. Leave it to the next president.
IHT: That's human nature isn't it? But it doesn't seem to be the way Singapore operates. You're taking a lot of pains . . .
Lee Kuan Yew: Because we are too vulnerable. If the water goes up by one meter, we can have dikes and save ourselves. If the water goes up by three, four, five meters, (laughs) what will happen to us? Half of Singapore will disappear! The valuable half - the seafronts! Well, let us say, it has gone up to one meter and we have protected ourselves. But our neighboring islands have disappeared! And then Indonesia may not have 30,000 islands - many will be under water.
I believe in the collective power of human intellect, if everyone puts aside their differences and instead put their minds together for a common goal, humanity will survive the near impossible. But that's just too ideal isn't it? I guess what we need is a dose of "semi-paranoid-forever-running-scared-fight-for-survival" mentality. Kiasu-ism (a Hokkien dialect term for affraid to lose) or should I say Kiasi-ism (affraid to die) is what we all need at this point of time. Everybody is so preoccupied with meeting their daily needs that nobody is pressuring our Cabinet members on what are they doing to ensure the survival of the next generation. Nevermind about the Bumiputera equity, the question we should be asking is if there is even any equity worth fighting over for in the next 50 years.
No keris this time around?
By sheer coincidence, on the eve of our nation's Merdeka celebrations, IHT published a 3 part article probing the thoughts of Singapore's founder and current Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. At the same as I read our PM's Merdeka Day message, I can't help but contrast that to the "semi-paranoid-forever-running-scared-fight-for-survival" kind of thoughts that continues to fill the mind of the 84-year old Harvard educated lawyer, whose mind is showing no signs of slowing down with age. Yes I recognise that the context of the message is different, but still my point of concern is I have yet to hear conversations of this calibre among our Cabinet members. Particulary on the most historically significant date to our nation. Please do spare some time read the excerpts of IHT's interview with Harry Lee, the name LKY used to go by prior to his return to his homeland. I promise you that it is worth your time.
Yes, we may scoff and ridule Singapore for its authoritarian regime and for its governments regulation of the media and politically dissenting views. Like all things humanly, they do have their own short comings. In fact, I would never name LKY as a personal hero nor someone that I would give the same level of respect to Nelson Mandela, Martin Lurther King or Mother Teressa. But do LKY's policies on political and media freedom somewhat diminishes the significance of Singapore's achievement to turn what was once a malaria infested fishing village into what LKY calls a First world oasis in a Third world region. Mind you that they achieved that in less than 50 years, without all the natural resources that our government casually squanders away. Critics, especially those from UMNO Youth will argue that such comparisons are irrelvant as Singapore is too small, too small to be even considered a country. Presumably as an excuse for the current Cabinet members to justify the sad state our nation today, that they have a harder task of managing a larger country. But I believe the converse is equally true. A smaller nation will have less natural resources to rely on, and more importantly, a smaller population which will in turn translate into a smaller talent pool of brain power to transform the socio-economic landscape. Can anyone argue against that? How about KJ? Or our Keris waving minister? Notice that it is the Malaysians, constantly being fed distorted truths on Singapore via its equally government controlled media, are the ones who ridicule the tiny republic the most? While the rest of the world looks to Singapore as a model for sustainable development, city planning and administration? City councillors from China travel to Singapore every 3 months to learn about city planning and administration. I believe Confucious has a teaching about the perils of a fool allowing his own ego to get in the way of his own learning. I guess that says it all about our current political leaders - a fool. LKY might be a real dick in the eyes of many Singaporeans and its critics, but we would be a greater fool to not learn from their experience.Our universities are more preoccupied with ensuring that girls adhere to a strict Islamic dress code rather than producing the next generation of job creators. At the upper echelons of our government administration, there is very little incentive for them to push forward towards achieving true national unity, a level of unity where it is no longer revelant to attach the word unity with racial. In fact, they stand to gain more by defending the current racial politics based power-sharing policy. Why change something that is allowing them to lead such comfortable lifes by squandering away my country's resources? They continue to sow seeds of racial mistrust and for the people to rely on their race based "elected" representatives to protect the interest of their community. In the grand scheme of all things greed and preservation of self-interest, what hope is there for us to attain true unity? Mind you the race-based power sharing policy is in itself a legacy of our British colonial fathers. And here we are celebrating 50 years of our Independence, claiming that we are free from our colonizers. What an irony isn't it?
On the other end of the spectrum, the Muslim majority and the socio-economic lower half of our population knows no better. They believe that a lack of moral and religious teachings is the source of all the corruption and problems with this country. They also tend to have an overly simplistic view that a return to the fundamentalist teachings of Islam will cure all the problems that plague our country. Lost among the wave of globalisation, these group of people tend to find comfort in the nostalgia of the glory days of Islamic civilizations, frequently romanticizing the conquests of the Sultans of yore and their majestic mausoleum. Nevermind the fact that as mentioned by Farish Noor, empires of the old age, whether Chinese, Indian or Muslim are often charactised by rampant class based exploitation and violent political hierarchies.
My point is that at both ends of our social spectrum, there is a worringly lack of urgency to address the happenings that are going on around us that could relegate our country further to the sidelines. We are barking up all the wrong tree to address what is wrong with this country. It is not the way our girls dress at UUM nor the way a certain rapper chooses to articulate his emotions on Merdeka day, that are the critical issues.
Lee Kuan Yew: First, to understand Singapore, you've got to start off with an improbable story. It should not exist . . . We haven't got the base, the space, the wherewithal. This is not Jamaica or Bahamas or Fiji. This is a little island strategically placed at the southernmost end of Asia connecting the sea routes between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.
Suddenly, we're on our own. (After being ejected in 1965 from Malaysia which followed the end of British colonial rule.) We have to defend ourselves. We have to make a living without a hinterland. We've got to have a Foreign Ministry. It's one thing running Hong Kong under British or Chinese protection; it's another matter governing tiny Singapore. You have to build an army, navy, air force, control and command systems, early warning, AWACs in the sky and so on.
So, can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn't depend on us alone.
If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn't exist. Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (laughs)
Like I said, there are many reasons for me not like LKY, but how I yearn for my own country leaders to have the same sort of pragmatism on our country's future. Oil money will run out soon. What will happen then?
To begin with we don't have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors, a homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.
We are migrants from southern China, southern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, before it was divided, Ceylon and the archipelago. So, the problem was, can we keep these peoples together?
The basis of a nation just was not there. But the advantage we had was that we became independent late. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid - racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon.
Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we'd be damned. So, there's no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We're all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.
IHT: What you're describing now is the basis for the formation of the type of country and society that you formed. And also, then, the types of criticisms that come toward Singapore - the answers may lie in these same . . .
Lee Kuan Yew: The answer lies in our genesis. To survive, we have to do these things. And although what you see today - the superstructure of a modern city, the base is a very narrow one and could easily disintegrate.
We are not Venice. We are not Athens with wide open spaces and far away neighbors. We are part of a world which is globalized, cheek by jowl with teeming millions in the region, populating at fast speed (laughs), right?
I guess this very much explains LKY's fallout with Tunku. His pragmatism will not allow him to agree to Tunku's race-based party politics power sharing formula. 40 years later, LKY's rhetorics to Tunku eeringly returns to haunt us in the ASLI's controversial report on Bumiputera equity by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee. I wonder if our memory-challenged public still remembers this sad turn of events that eventually led to Dr. Lim's resignation from ASLI.
There is no country in the world using a similar race-based approach to development. It is a formula built for disaster, especially for deserving groups of all races that are marginalised, and perhaps, especially more for the apparently favoured racial groups.
- Dr Lim Teck Ghee, former director of Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli)'s Centre for Public Policy Studies, former United Nations regional adviser and World Bank senior social scientist.
I started off by stating my reservations against LKY, against all forms of "idoltary" of the Singaporean government as though it offers a one-size fits all solution to all our woes. But reading this last piece of reply from LKY forced me to reluctantly give credit and my outmost respect for their foresight in ensuring the survival of Singapore and its people over the next 50 years. And that has to do with LKY's stance on the issue of global warming, overpopulation, ensuring continuation of law and order in the world and Singapore's responce to these challenges.
IHT: What about the risks to Singapore, what are the risks to Singapore in those scenarios?
Lee Kuan Yew: Oh! We are already in consultations with Delft in Holland to learn how we can build dikes!
IHT: Is that right?
Lee Kuan Yew: Oh, yes! Let's start thinking about it now.
IHT: Are you serious?
Lee Kuan Yew: We are. We are in consultations with them. It scares me because many world leaders have not woken up to the peril that their populations are in. This melting ice cap. I expected great consternation! What would happen to this earth? But, no. Has it triggered off emergency meetings to do something about this? Earth warming, the glaciers melting away? Never mind the Swiss Alps and skiing resorts having to manufacture snow. When the glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibet melt away, the Ganges, the Yangtze, the Irrawaddy, the Mekong, may dry up, except for rainy seasons. What will happen to the hundreds of millions? Where do they go? Where can they go? This will be a very serious problem.
IHT: Why don't you think the world isn't focusing on this?
Lee Kuan Yew: Because it's not an election issue. You know maybe 50 years, a 100 years, most of us would be dead. Leave it to the next president.
IHT: That's human nature isn't it? But it doesn't seem to be the way Singapore operates. You're taking a lot of pains . . .
Lee Kuan Yew: Because we are too vulnerable. If the water goes up by one meter, we can have dikes and save ourselves. If the water goes up by three, four, five meters, (laughs) what will happen to us? Half of Singapore will disappear! The valuable half - the seafronts! Well, let us say, it has gone up to one meter and we have protected ourselves. But our neighboring islands have disappeared! And then Indonesia may not have 30,000 islands - many will be under water.
I believe in the collective power of human intellect, if everyone puts aside their differences and instead put their minds together for a common goal, humanity will survive the near impossible. But that's just too ideal isn't it? I guess what we need is a dose of "semi-paranoid-forever-running-scared-fight-for-survival" mentality. Kiasu-ism (a Hokkien dialect term for affraid to lose) or should I say Kiasi-ism (affraid to die) is what we all need at this point of time. Everybody is so preoccupied with meeting their daily needs that nobody is pressuring our Cabinet members on what are they doing to ensure the survival of the next generation. Nevermind about the Bumiputera equity, the question we should be asking is if there is even any equity worth fighting over for in the next 50 years.
Posted by whylikethat at 12:41 AM | Add a Comment
