jump to navigation

5 Years to Ruin… June 27, 2008

Posted by The Truth in Im Allgemeinen.

So our Great Leader has spoken once again. Namely, he’s threatened that 5 years are all it takes to ruin Singapore. Seriously, though, i wonder if he would rather see a gradual decline instead. One freak election, he says, is all it takes to ruin Singapore. Firstly, what is a ‘freak election?’ From his subjective point of view, a ‘freak election’ probably means the Opposition winning a freak victory, which is shocking in perfectly-governed Singapore, hence ‘freak.’ To him, it is unimaginable. We have to consider, however, why he sees it as unimaginable. Perhaps he thinks Machiavelli is right – the only way to keep control of your people is to make sure they fear you, but not to the extent that a champion arises amongst the people.

Secondly, why would we become ‘bored’ and vote for the vociferous opposition (which, as far as i know, hasn’t been especially vociferous of late excluding one party) out of ‘light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness?’ Firstly, bored of what? Bored of good years? Or bored of increasing income disparity, bored of ministers raising their salary despite mistakes, bored of what? I don’t know what we should be bored of. Maybe bored of working 8-6 every day without earning the money we deserve. And voting for the opposition in light-heartedness, fickleness or even madness? Such harsh words to think that we would vote for them because we were insane. Politically and pragmatically, though, it is a good way at crowd control. Singaporeans are so used to conforming that if PAP says you must be insane to vote for the opposition, or some other negative adjective, you could actually believe them.

The need for a system which ensures that good leaders are produced is a need which i appreciate as well. But that it has worked up til now doesn’t mean that it will work forever. What’s more, although these leaders have been through the system, have they seen the flaws of it? Do they believe they are invulnerable? Do they have a right to be invulnerable? Although the government has to trust these leaders by virtue of them passing the system, it doesn’t mean that the people have to trust them as well. As he said, ‘your existence depends on performance’ – apparently the existence of some don’t.

The first of his three criteria is a government which people have confidence in and trust when tough decisions need to be taken. Obviously, this is a reference to the many tough decisions which have been made lately. But it seems like we don’t really see the positive end of the GST hike, or of having more ERP gantries. Ministers raising their own salaries to match the private sector also make their intentions terribly suspect – who else raises their own salary?

Secondly, leaders who are above board, making decisions based on necessity, not for self-benefit. No one can really accuse these ministers of making decisions based on self-benefit. But then, how many of the made decisions are necessary? For example, investing in overseas companies and banks which have returned nothing but losses? ‘We have not got richer, but Singapore has,’ he breezes. Erm…so where is the money? Public works? Paving over drainage covers, leading to more mosquitoes? Cosmetics over real help? And we’re amazed when billions are coughed up to help some ailing banks. If Singapore has grown richer, why aren’t we told how much we make a year?

Lastly, we need able men. Able men would be able to perceive what the people need, and help them accordingly. Able men, incidentally, would be responsible too. Able men would take it upon themselves to do something, and not continually remind us about what WE have to do. Like stop buying branded food. Or to take public transport. Or to stop being insane. Or to move on. Or to stop being complacent. And so on, and so forth.

5 years to ruin? Perhaps Great Leader spoke with wisdom. We should sit up and think about it… maybe not sending a warning is on the way to ruin for Singapore too.



1. CelluloidReality - June 28, 2008

What’s more important is a strong set of institutions and systems, not a government.

The former is supposed to outlive any party or adminstration, and should the latter outlive or outshine the former, it’s quite deplorable.

2. Changi-gate T4 - June 28, 2008

Sure we have very very able people to run the Home Affairs Ministry, that let murderer walked across the Causeway, that facilitate an unarmed limp escaped from the tightly-controlled centre in which so-called Marxists were detained and cruelly interogated, that happily allowed an elderly person possessing wrong documents to fly out of the world’s number 1 airport, and lastly security men allowing detainees to nearly-escaped, even in a so-called secured compound of courts.

A 3-year old can easily laugh at all these greatest jokes which I am sure can qualify as some sort of Guinness Book of Records entries.

3. TheOwl - June 28, 2008

I agree that it is important for Singapore to have a strong set of institutions and systems that will survive any government. Unfortunately this is not LKY’s legacy to the people.

What is unravelling before our eyes is those words of wisdom, ” absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It is sheer madness on Singaporeans part to ignore those words of wisdom and give LKY and his PAP the mandate for over 40 years.
It is sheer madness to believe all the PAP policies are for the benefit of the people.
It is sheer madness to believe only those selected by the PAP are competent to lead the country.
It is time Singaporeans believe in themselves.

4. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 1 Jul 2008 - July 1, 2008

[…] Conqueror of the British Empire in SE Asia in General and Singapore in Particular – Die neue Welle: 5 Years to Ruin.. – TOC: “Singapore upholds free speech” – MM Lee’s press […]

5. The SS - July 2, 2008

This is Leadership and Accountability, which is truly lacking in the PAP:

Where do we find such honourable men in the PAP line up?

6. NewCitizen - July 2, 2008

“What’s more important is a strong set of institutions and systems, not a government.”

a diversified people cannot be governed by the limited wisdom of a single political party in perpetual power.

under the current electoral system, the best political team is elected to form the majority rule. but best is subjective and will not necessarily serve the interests of the diverse groups of people. also, with a strong party, it may just find clever ways to hold on to powers indefinitely and in so doing, resist necessary changes or continue unpopular oppressive measures. furthermore, there is no guarantee the next government will not plunder the wealth and hard work of the previous regime and inflict a worse(ruin) fate on its people and country.

we need a new political system that will address the problems on being dependent on a few ‘charismatic leaders’. no matter what, a few ‘good men’ cannot represent everyone effectively. we need a political system that acknowledges, recognizes and absorbs key groups of people into powers that would ensure balance of interests, stability and longevity. Only when these groups of people are correctly represented and their distinctive voices heard will true peace ensue and the community mature.

the same should then be expanded and encompass all into a universal earth community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: