Sunday, 8 May 2011

sad sad

it's sad to see george yeo lose.

i met george many a times back in the 90s when i did my usual runs at east coast regularly. he too was an avid runner. and he would do his chin-ups at the exercise area closest to the marine terrace pedestrian overhead bridge. despite his ministerial position, he would go about doing his exercises without airs. he would smile at people, wave and acknowledge people when people call out to him and he would occasionally have little chit chats with people who approach him. he was a superbly humble man. this all despite his position in the government.

over the last few years, as the foreign minister, he oversaw many many foreign policies and resolved many many issues that singapore couldn't solve. these include issues such as those with our closest neighbours about the ktm railway land, water deals, airspace, international waterways, horsburg lighthouse, just to name a few. and in the international arena, he was well respected. it was directly because of him that singapore enjoys such high-standing and respect internationally in recent years. and i admire him for his pragmatism. despite his policy and high-level thinking, he was always clear in his head that in the areas of diplomacy, one must always be realistic and not be disappointed if things do not go the way one wishes too. i remembered him making this point some years back and this resonated with me deeply when i held a defence relation post several years back.

i am really sad to see him bear the brunt of people's dissactisfaction with the party, made more challenging by a credible team. i think people vote against not becos he is no good, but because they simply wanted a voice and they found it in wp. but admittedly, i was not very impressed and rather angry with wp for choosing to challenge the aljunied ward instead of, say, tampines. george did not deserve such a challenge. residents of aljunied cannot and should not be made use of in this manner. it was pure emotional blackmail. to me, it was not a win for singaporeans, it was a lost. a country's lost. a lost of a internationally well-respected giant in the areas of diplomacy. that the country had to have to lose such a international giant in replacement of local politics is, to me, not worth it. and from that perspective, i find wp very irresponsible. that is totally not in line with their war-cry of wanting the best for singaporeans...

then again, i supposed this is politics. and as george had said himself, one needs to be realistic when one is in politics. i can only wish george well now. and of cos, to wp, i hope they can fulfil their promises. they better do well and keep their promises. we shall all be watching you closely.

11 comments:

  1. I do follow your blog from afar. As a fellow brother from 2/85 IOCC, I am fascinated by your thoughts and feelings. We might not be of the same sexual orientation but I really respect your experiences and feel your pain when the SAF discriminated against you for your sexual orientation. I did not realize there could be gays in OCS. But hear you question people who are trying to stand up to the establishment in such cynical language saddens me. Brother, these are folks who have put their lives on the line for people like you. Respect them, not watch them,and support them, because there will be 81 other PAP MPs watching and condemning them! You don't have to be part of that mob. I am sure you know how it feels to be attacked and ridiculed for being who you are. I like your blogs and I usually read it silently. I am not gay but one of your brother from 2/85 IOCC. All the Way!

    ReplyDelete
  2. hi there,

    thanks for reading my blog and commenting. frankly speaking, i should be the first one to oppose the current institution for putting me through what i went through. but i think when it comes to running the country, one needs to be objective rather than emotional. i cannot let my experience influence my views about objectivity towards my country. i love my country and i cannot and should not let my personal grievances affect my views about policies.

    to me, all policies put forth have been no short of perfectly thought through. my thoughts as of now is that the ruling party is a victim of its own successes. the people that have grown up in the system are better educated, enjoy better lives, live in world-class conditions etc such that they now demand more, such that they now demand perfection. and to me, there is no such thing call perfection. and to me, the key problem is that the ruling party had failed to communicate sufficiently well with the country, especially about how policies are made. that is their only fault. having been through my experience in the ministry, i have seen the process and the amount of considerations when policies are made and i am quite sure regardless of political affiliations, the outcome of many current policies would not be much different even if it were to be made by the opposition. there is just that much latitude we have considering our very limited local resources and the total exposure to the international market forces given our small size.

    in the case of george's lost and wp's win, i felt sad becos the country have lost someone who had put in his best unquestionably for the country for the last 2-3 decades. his achievements when he held the different portfolios were all tremendously outstanding. as the ministry in charge of trade, he brought singapore into the forefront of trade by starting free trade agreements, as the minister in charge of the arts, he liberalized the country's arts scene (he introduced the multilayered film rating too), and more recently was his contributed to the country by solving all the diplomacy issues... i am sad for the fact that the country have lost a perfect (at least to me) minister.

    and no, i am not cynical abt wp, rather, i am not convinced from their pitching over the last 10 days. to me, their pitching all lacks objectivity and people who attend their rallies (and voted for them i supposed) were all very emotional. there was a lot of cries and messages about voice in the parliament, about all sorts of issues and all were pitched very emotionally rather than objectively. there was no systems thinking when things were raised. to me, all these were no more than evoking people's resentment towards the ruling party with no clear alternate solutions. and even when alternate solutions were proposed, many were highly iffy and broadbrushed.

    (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  3. i have spoken to many (esp the younger first time voters) about their views about the different political parties. many had attended rallies for both the ruling and opposition parties. and many came out impressed with specific individuals for their eloquence (i would if i were them too as it came across very to the heart). and many who attended the opposition parties rallies came back expressing - i have decided, i want change. and when i asked further about their reasons, most couldn't give an answer. for those who gave answers like (as an example) - oh the transport system is totally screwed up. when i asked them to explain why they say it is screwed up, they couldn't explain much further. and very soon, they got angry. and they could only say - i want change. i just want to oppose. doesn't this sound scary? isn't this really a sad day for singapore? that the population has come to such a state of treating politician selection in such superficial and masak-masak manner?

    yes, i do give the candidates the credit for their qualities, and i think their win certainly gives the ruling paper a wake-up call, a wake-up to better communicate to the public. and for all the grouses raised that became super hot topics (eg cost of living, housing, transport, yog, etc), none, not a single one were related to what the foreign ministry, or a arts and info ministry or a trade ministry do - all the port folios of george yeo, past and present.

    but as i have indicated, such is politics. in fact, by losing, george yeo, with his talent might be earning a higher pay now, he will be headhunted. so, it is not about him. it is his talent, his dedication and his contributions to singapore.

    it is singapore's lost.

    no?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This election is a disappointment to me, but not because George Yeo lost. And please don’t blame the WP for standing for election at Aljunied but blame the PAP for implementing the GRC system to keep the oppositions out in the first place.
    It is disappointing because I feel a lot of Singaporeans are still voting with fear, ignorance and self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For me, good governance entails a balance in power. True, the PAP has done some things right, but they have also failed the people in others. PAP has become too arrogant and complacent. High up in their ivory towers, they have stopped listening and connecting with people on the ground. Otherwise, why did the PM apologize? Besides, how could the Ministers not be held responsible and accountable for their wrongs? This is evident by the dip in their share of the votes from 66.6% in 2006 to 60.1%. Definitely, a lot of Singaporeans are unhappy.

    I was formerly from Nee Soon Central SMC. In 1991, we voted in the opposition SDP and were promptly denied a polyclinic in Yishun although a slot was reserved for it. In its place a childcare centre and medical centre were set up. In 1997, the Nee Soon Central voters accepted the carrots offered by the PAP and voted them in. Subsequently, we got our polyclinic. I pitied the doctors who spent thousands of dollars on their clinics only to be ordered to leave to make way for the Yishun Polyclinic. Such is the injustice of Politics!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another disappointment for me in this election is our dear old Mr Chiam See Tong lost. This is the man who really serves his people from the bottom of his heart, conducting his MPS at that singular table sited at a corner of the void deck, partitioned for privacy by aluminium panels into a makeshift cubicle for the past 27 years. Why? The PAP has refused to provide offices for opposition Members of Parliament (MP), while PAP MPs themselves conduct their MPS’s at the air-conditioned offices of its PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens premises. Mr Chiam’s void deck cubicle is truly a symbol of how utterly petty our politics is, as played out by the ruling PAP.
    Although short on funds and the opposition ward being at the bottom of the PAP list for upgrading, Mr Chiam See Tong managed to upgrade the lifts in some of the blocks with the funds from his SMC.

    The only consolation is WP has managed to retain Hougang and won Aljunied by a significant percentage!!! They have to work doubly hard to show their supporters that they had made the correct decision to vote them in and would not have to repent for the next 5 years.

    This is how I feel as an ordinary citizen of Singapore.

    Cheers! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. heh heh... pse read my post correctly. i did not say i am angry at wp for contesting against the pap. they should. and if pap team cannot take it, it deserves to lose. and i totally agree that pap needs to improve in many areas.

    what i am saying is (1) pap's fault lie in not being able to communicate it's policy making sufficiently well - as a result, came across as being arrogant (rightly or wrongly) (2) objectivity must prevail when voting, when running a country is concern, rationality is paramount (3) the choice of contesting in aljunied is, to me, regrettable cos the pap candidate is a credible one and one that do not deserve to lose in this manner. his lost is singapore's lost, i mean if they had chosen to focus their efforts in a ward where the incumbent is weaker, i would certainly vote for them.

    my point here is, i am not being pro-pap here. i am being rational. if my ward has a credible opposition, i would also vote for them if they have credible programs, able to convince me of my vote.

    and yes, i do think key figures in the oppositon parties such as mr chiam, mr low, ms sylvia all deserve all the respect i can give. they are all credible people. and i am sorry mr chiam lost the contest.

    ReplyDelete
  8. and hey, i do not totally agree with you that "good governance entails a balance in power".

    i think we need to define what is power. if you mean power is in being in control of the government, then there will always be only 1 power - the party who won. there cannot be 2 powers in a government because it means there will be a hung government. and the country stalls. the concept of "balance of powers" applies when there are 2 or more powers opposing each other eg in the cold war where america and ussr are opposing each other and there must be a balance of power when such bipolarity occurs to ensure it doesn't tip unnec to one side or the other such that a world war erupts.

    i think you meant- there must be checks and balances to ensure the party in power remains people-centric and that they do not abuse their authority. ie, it is about checks and balances in how this power is used. the answer to this could possibly be a more-than-one party system or otherwise. the singapore system is an interesting one cos it is the only system in the world where the ruling party make deliberate policies to kept itself in check - presidential 2 key system to ensure reserves are not adulterated by the ruling party, ncmps, nmps, etc. no political parties in the world would so such suicidal thing to keep itself in checks. on this, i give credit to the ruling party. but yup, i should be better communicated to the people. but finally the people have to decide, to vote another party into parliament to provide another level of checks. and i think the population have signalled it clearly.

    secondly, i also disagree with your take on the grc system. the root of it, my take, is to ensure we continue to have minorities represented in the government/ parliament. our olitical system is a merit-based one and not race-based one like that seen in, say, malaysia. it wouldn't augur well for us if our system becomes race-based and deteriorate to what we see in malaysia where we have a chinese party pit themselves against a malay party and the society break-up along race lines. to ensure we do not go that direction, the grc concept was formed. but objectively, from this perspective, we should see a grc of not more than 4 persons (representing the 4 races). so yes, i do not agree if a grc grows to 5 or 6.

    interestingly, don't you see the beauty of the grc system whereby we now also have minority opposition mps (1 malay and one modern singh) now that one of the grc is won by the opposition? i can never imagine it can happen if we go along a system where there are no grcs.

    no?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oops, sorry, I deleted my comment because I wanted to edit it. Here it goes:

    Yes, you are right about the opposition being "checks and balances' on the government. What I meant when I said 'a balance in power' was that. Being just an ordinary Singaporean I am not so articulate to bring my points across.

    Anyway I stand by my opinion about the GRC system. "If everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks at all."

    ReplyDelete
  10. hi ladybird,

    no worries, you are entitled to your views and i respect that. i think it is not about whether everybody thinks the same or not. the fact that someone is thinking (or for that matter, everyone is thinking) is a move in the right direction. we can and we must choose to agree to disagree on issues cos all issues have more than 1 solution and people like you and i would, in all likelihood, have different views about each individual solution given our different background, age, etc. only thing is that hopefully, our opinions are based on "thinking/ rationality" rather than simply on "feelings".

    also, if these views were voiced as part of a process towards solving a problem, we must ultimately agree to the common solution to move forward, we have to both give and take and take ownership of the solution. we must converge. we cannot point finger at one another when and if things go awry. we must work as a team. only then can we move forward together.

    :-)

    thanks again for sharing your views and good night! have a great week ahead!

    ReplyDelete
  11. True, coming from different backgrounds and having different life experiences, it's inevitable for us to have differing views.

    Being basically a heartlander and a mother, the government policies affect me and my family in different ways from how they would affect you.

    Anyway, it's good listening to alternative views and learning from them at the same time.

    Thanks for taking time to reply. A great week ahead for you too! ;)

    ReplyDelete