from green to black

what nonsense are they talking about?

its that season again, the only time when people seem
to have a sense of power, and it will not be too soon
before they lose it all again.

elections, the time when the government tells you that
they are not the masters but servants of the people.
it wont be too long before we see them acting like
lords over everyone else, but when that happens you
probably have to wait another long 5 years while
kicking yourself in the butt for keeping them around.

firstly, singaporeans really cheese me off. they love
complaining about everything but mostly do nothing
about it. they really deserve to suffer from government
policies if thats the case, because at the very moment
they have an iota of influence to affect their
self-determination they abdicate in favour of apathy,
misinformation and god knows what other reasons.

1) they dont bother to research on issues and arguments
they feel strongly about.

improvements in productivity? yeah right, balls!
firstly there is a limit to both human efficiency and
the substitutability of technology for labour. yes,
there are lazy people, our army is an example of an
organization filled with people like that. you need
to squeeze hard if you want to get juice from those
rocks. otherwise, people are working very hard. with
downsizing to cut costs, 1 person may be doing the
work of 3 people. it is efficient but how much more
burden must we place on the shoulders of the
individual employee.

does efficiency translate into a social issue as
well? maybe heavy demands translate into an intrusion
into the personal. could that lead to a declining
birth rate, could the declining birth rate lead to
us importing more foreign labour. that maybe requires
us to be more competitive and then have even fewer
babies? does the tried and tested response suffice
as a solution where the environment is very
different from what our predecessors faced? even
as manufacturing plays a huge role in our economy,
there is an increasing emphasis on the service sector.
is this example of a tapering in export led growth
indicative of need to preempt the curve that we
can catch the next big growth driver? what do our
leaders think?

ministerial salaries are another bugbear that
seem to sway people too easily. we dont want
corruption, but we need to pay off the tendency
for greed so that our ministers do a good job.
well, in that case we really need to worry because
a good job is tied to the economy since it benchmarks
the highest paid individuals in a basket of industries.
a good job then probably wouldnt be judged by how
well they serve you but how well they serve business.
what? you're not in the loop? tough. here's 2000
dollars for your university degree. oh and a 400
bonus for the good job that we did. and dont be an
ungrateful leper because there are many more worse
off than you. by the way did we say that your hdb
and children are subsidized too? (at what rate?)
if that justifies a salary 1000times more than
the most of us, maybe we can imagine if we paid
them all half of what they earn and put the rest
in MCYS. you might just get a better life. maybe.

foreign talent is different from foreign labour.
we need foreign labour and foreign talent is pays
off when they contribute skills and jobs that we
do not have. what we do need to scrutinize is the
employment practices of companies. the hypocrisy
of singaporeans is that we claim we are a
meritocratic society but we turn protectionist
when we cannot compete with the "merit" of being
cheaper labour. then we expect the government to
solve the "foreign worker" problem. why not look
at who your bosses prefer to employ, chances are
they dont really like the more expensive guy.
the point is, how does one claim that a party
represent his position when they cannot be sure
how policies(general laws) affect him without
applying clear and consistent reasoning.


2) they dont bother to sift out facts from opinion and
misinformation.

the government controlled local media has done a good
job in making us think what they like us to think.
many of us will be guilty of a siege mentality. we
constantly fear a northern invasion from hostile
neighbours or a stirring giant and the threat of
a surge from the south is an ever present spectre.
yet cutting the defense budget isnt all a crazy idea,
even if modernizing is important. if we do not
purchase hardware year after year we can operate
with ( 20x150m = 3-4billion > 20f15sg + 1b armaments)
3 billion less!!! imagine that. what could we do
will 3 billion dollars more circulating in our economy?

it then follows that only the incumbent can secure
our future when the opposition are portrayed as
incompetent, inexperienced and unworthy. yet many
times, a wise leader said that singapore was the
work of a tenacious and hardworking people. if there
is anything left of that tenacious and hardworking
people, we ought to continue with leadership that
remembers where that burden of responsibility is
placed while competency is essential, we must remember
that only the past is certain. like the black swan
argument or humes regularity theorem, experience
may not be such a heavyweight if the future doesnt
resemble the past. we do well to remember that it
was also a young party that with great drive and
determination got us this far.

it is also a fallacy to equate democracy to mean
american-style politicking. however the failure of
the government to mediate between the poles of
society may doom it so. democracy works well when
the people are somewhat homogeneous. a widening
income gap, religious radicalization and ethnic
inequality may lead to entrenched differences.
those are problems that can be solved by the
government if it has the political will and mandate.
democracy can be seen as a value institution, a
means to a non-violent change in leadership and
a safeguard of protections that checks the government.
america was built on unity and compromise, the
founding fathers included a bill of rights to the
constitution to reassure the states against the
federation that their rights would be protected.
the states that did not favour the federal system
complied in the end because it was necessary to
stand united against the british. this ability to
compromise and make deals in the interest of
singaporeans should be the characteristic of a good
burkean representative. that should be the direction
that the white party should guide politics in singapore
instead of using democracy as a whipping boy.

its almost social opium to believe that we are all
treated equally and fairly, we are not. there is an
in group and and out group. while claiming that they
are a government for all singaporeans, there is clearly
a bias against opposition wards and for the elite. the
worrying thing is that we are so opaque about this.
sometimes we sweep this issue under the carpet, but
someone is paying for the funds that others enjoy.
this unfairness and bullying is what we should stand
against in unity because it is the moral thing to do.
wouldnt you loathe for it to happen that when you
open your eyes 1 day in the future the losers in
this unfair game might be you.

3)they dont really make any effort to channel their views
to the government or to the opposition parties other
than to ask for more freebies. (the greed is disgusting)
really, does more money solve everything? how about
qualitative issues like re-thinking value to the ends
of a more gracious society. how can the government
lead the way in promoting flexibility to reduce the
amount of stress that affects everyone in society.
some people enjoy the stress. many are miserable but
bear with it because they might just starve otherwise.
maybe its time for the people instead of the government
to take the lead in re-looking workplace policies to
suggest how they want their lives to be improved.

do singaporeans still dream? i know they aspire but do
they still dream? what if they could turn a fantasy into
reality? would it still be the same picture as that of
the old guard in the party? it was a good picture, but
is there nothing better? is competition only academic,
why is it not cultural? what is stopping us from creating
something new like the most supportive society, where
tolerance and a respect for individual contribution marks
our daily life.

a sportsman trains but also volunteers the experience of
applying his craft. a golfer dreams of a more beautiful
landscape, a dirt biker forms an association to maintain
nature trails, swimmers lead the elderly in low impact
activity to enhance their mobility. can we see more than
1 source of cost reduction to improve our competitiveness?
i can. can we see more diversity than knowledge competition?
its possible.

it isnt too late to see that a party is partisan.
are your interests being represented? maybe its
time to do something about it.

- the writer is critical, however he acknowledges
and is grateful for the achievements of the white party.
this piece is his contribution to debate in singapore

Labels: politics

posted by green unseen @ 12:12 PM