Just finished reading Friedman's Flat World which is an apparent hot seller. Also just read MM's remarks in the ST today on how Singapore needs to buck up and be open, right after yesterday's comments wherein he claimed that Singapore will never have a culture to call her own even after 400 years. IMHO a bit of a cut and paste job from Friedman's book with some modifications to suit the local context and imperial-like tastebuds.
The two are inextricably entwined. In more ways then one. We have been an open and inclusive society from the get go pre-Independence in '65.
(I choose to believe that the racial riots were manufactured incidences - I was not born yet and only have 'written' history as a guide along with oral recounts of the older folk who are diminshing dramatically everyday. This belief is based on a cursory 'study' of the politics of those times - again in part based on re-written history and oral transmissions from our 'founding fathers & mothers.' In short the racial riots were a political gambit - just like how the triads were initially allowed then slowly eradicated once their usefullness diminished.)
And Singapore remains very open to foreigners to this day.
What remains unplatable and has not been addressed as a root cause of worry for the influx of FTs can be found reflected in Jack Neo's 'I Not Stupid' productions. Recall the how the MD accepts the Ang Moh's recommendations based on (translated from Hokkien) "as long as it is produced by a foreigner / ang moh it must be good."
Until this system of thinking which is rampant in our Mandarin caste is eradicated and locals are given a chance to shine through .... really given a chance .... the concern about FTs taking away our jobs will forever remain.
To add salt to an open wound MM Lee furhter went on to comment that Mao Zedong was a great man despite a low education level because he had a 'capacious' mind. Easy for you to say Mr. Lee but your policies and your social engineering tweakings which you in the same breath still ascribe to have condemned all Singaporeans to an endless paper chase to prove self worth and worth to society. So which is it you want now? Highly educated narrow thinkers the system produces today or lowly educated but broad thinkers who are just so because of the lack of constraint imposed by the system of education and social engineering?
But how is it a single man is able to chart the history and the future of a nation? It is theoretically and physically impossible unless supported by a large group of people who perpetuate the system. Brings to mind the civil service.
So how does one go about breaking a mindset within which an entire generation has grown up? How does one go about telling the older generation that their attitudes and beliefs in life will only serve to condemn the next generation into obscurity when for a brief flicker in history these folk proved to themselves that their system was right, that their beliefs were right. It is far easier to consign people to the past then ideas. I have no answer short of a revolution of the mind in Singapore. How can one reverse the thinking of an entire generation?
If you interpret these words as a condemnation of the publicly proclaimed 'confuscianistic values' so intrinsic to Asian society you are right. But let it be known that I am not anti-chinese nor anti-chinese values. The problem lies in extremes. We have pushed ourselves too far to one end of the scale.
Normally, one might say that tomorrow will pay the price for today's excesses but in the case of Singapore where everything is played out at ten times the speed of life ..... this afternoon we shall pay for this morning's excesses. Excesses in social engineering, excesses aspiration, excesses in gaining wealth, excesses in the educational system, excesses in governance without a strong check, excesses in curbing a people's natural inclination to dream, excesses in demolishing a mish-mashing of culture that makes Singapore truly unique, excesses in sycophantic behaviour, excesses of a Mandarin system.
Nope, I still do not have an answer on how to address all these issues at one go even if I were Prime Minster tomorrow.
Friedman's book is an eye opener. A possible road map for countries going forward. I've previously made several recommendations (particularly in education) in the same light. But as a normal Singaporean I stand nowhee in terms of policy making. As an opposition figure my standing is constantly in legal and financial jeopardy. As an employee I have no control over the international economy which is moving quickly into Singapore. As a budding entrepreneur I face Himalayan obstacles in the local civil service in terms of regulations. In total, as an average Tan / Lim / Lee / Muhammad / Gopal / de Silva I have no ownership of my future in MY country.
I'm 35 this year, married, and wondering what kind of Singapore my child will be born into if we choose to conceive. Will my child be free to explore the world's or the universe's possibilities unfettered by a system of constraints, which in my opinion are designed to control and constrain the mental growth of the whole population? Will my child succumb to the pressures of life and our local societal norms in Singapore and turn out to be some freakish, impolite, selfish sociopath (already a good many adults today are like that)? Will my child grow up learning that creativity is taught and should adhere to the sense of creativity of his/her teacher - that approval is required to be creative and that creativity standards are measurable?
Singapore, we can stop the brain drain from happening. We can start to put a halt to the damage created by the Mandarin system of governance.
A true celebration of diversity implies an acceptance of others - including those outside the norm. Parents today need to instill in their children the need for living a fulfilling life outside of school and work. We need more Universities that are open to admission to all Singaporeans without the red tape of the British legacy - that cater to courses that make human beings and not just economic digits. We need to demolish the Mandarin (but not necessarily the PAP) system of governance so as to achieve truer ownership of our land and country. We need to ponder, as a nation, the policies that will take us forward into a future that is bright with possibilities, unlimited potential.
Differences in thought, lifestyle, sexual orientation, political orientation, stages of personal development should not be constrained by public policies which, in Singapore, are translated into monetarily or criminally enforceable societal norms. True openess needs to be achieved if we are to move forward as a people for a greater cause. This is what diversity truly means.
Diversity has no boundaries, unlike what the national education programmes (the mainstream media and government mouthpieces) like Singaporeans to believe.
A full fledged democracy imposed overnight, in which every single citizen is responsible for taking Singapore into the future, will meet with a systemic failure. Many of us have been conditioned not to think or even dare to ponder issues of governance. Until we overcome this difficulty we shall forever remain individual digits who have relegated the rights of our existence to the Mandarins.
Farewell Encik Guna
-
8th October 2017..
I was very busy at SA and managed to take a breather to check my phone
later in the evening... Was informed that the plug was pulled of...
7 years ago
2 comments:
With my limited understanding of Confucianism, I believe that it has been maligned. However, you could not be faulted as the misunderstanding has been purveyed by none other than the government.
A rather good blog by kiweto was a brave attempt at unmasking true the ruling philosophy of the government. He identified it as Legalism, the ruling philosophy of the Qin dynasty.
I will try to redress this in my own way:
Silvan Solomon Tomkins (1911-1991), a personality theorist, in the light of his Polarity Theory saw the recurrent polarity in fields as diverse as mathematics, political theory, theory of child rearing and theory of personality as being attributable to humanistic versus normative orientations.
The former positive idealization sees man as “an end in himself”. Tomkins assumed that it “attempts to maximize positive affect for individuals and for all their interpersonal relationships.”
The latter negative idealization holds that a man must work towards “attaining his full stature, only through struggle toward… a norm, a measure, an ideal essence.” Tomkins believed that it stresses that “norm compliance is the primary value and that positive affect is a consequence of norm compliance, not to be directly sought as a goal”. As a corollary, the suffering of negative affect is a frequent and inevitable experience.
Tomkins devised a polarity scale, in which an individual chooses between two statements each on diverse ideological issues to assess the individual’s position on the humanistic-normative spectrum. An example of such a pair of statements:
1. The maintenance of law and order is the most important duty of any government.
2. Promotion of welfare of the people is the most important function of a government.
Statement 1 is normative and 2 is humanistic. “Humans are basically evil.” and “Humans are basically good.” are another example of such a normative-humanistic pair.
Xun Zi the founder of Legalism firmly believed in the former, while Mencius held the latter to be true. It does not take a genius to figure out who was the humanist here!
Like the case of the revered Nanyang spirit, snuffed out about two decades back, Confucius’ name has been abused to legitimize a political agenda. I hope I have succeeded in attaining my original aim to right this wrong.
"I choose to believe that the racial riots were manufactured incidences - I was not born yet and only have 'written' history as a guide along with oral recounts of the older folk who are diminshing dramatically everyday. This belief is based on a cursory 'study' of the politics of those times - again in part based on re-written history and oral transmissions from our 'founding fathers & mothers.' In short the racial riots were a political gambit - just like how the triads were initially allowed then slowly eradicated once their usefullness diminished."
Eh I very blur leh... u mean the riots didn't happen? I dun understand... can pls explain?
Post a Comment