The REAL WORLD that we PLAY in

As you may have noticed, I have been posting consistently on my blog. This is primarily due to:
a) my laziness to go out
b) my lack of money
c) my boredom

So to entertain myself, I have decided to read about Singaporean political perspectives by various local bloggers. Of particular note is one written by K.S. on his blog entitled What is Blog? His writings, though antithetical to the mainstream governmental propaganda (to put it lightly..), are very perceptive and represents what I would call a committed and responsible voice of the opposition. He is not a member of an opposition party but his views on how the opposition should fight the incumbents are valid and are very well thought out (looking at the strategy pragmatically of course!).

The post entitled “The REAL WORLD that we PLAY in” is broken into part 1 and part 2. And in order to get a better insight on the debate, it is best that you read an entry by Mr Goh Meng Seng entitled Checks & Balances who incidentally is a member of the Worker’s Party and represents an alternative voice to mainstream political ideas.

What K.S. emphasizes on his blog is the “REALITY” of the political situation in Singapore, which involves engaging the PAP in its own battle field. And according to K.S. this would mean fielding opposition candidates with paper qualifications, who do not have weird idiosyncracies such as Tan Lead Shake (DPP) who was protrayed as a slipper-clad “chap” by the media. Instead on engaging on important issues such as unemployment, political freedom, transparency in the government and non-governmental organisations (such as the NKF), what the PAP is prone to doing is launching on attacks on the qualifications of the candidature (the presidential non-election is a fresh reminder I would argue). And I must quote him on this, simply because I have to agree with him, being a young politically aware soon-to-be voter (in two years time at least!).

“Most importantly, they must play and not continue complaining about being unfair. Stop complaining! Brush up you skills, recruit better players and use strategies to beat the ruling party at their own games!”

While it is universally known that the opposition is not (and will never be) fighting on a level battle field, we simply cannot complain childishly among ourselves (in the true Singaporean manner) of the blatant injustice of the political system or hide behind complex political theories to explain random irrational rantings of a certain politician of the opposition party who believes that this will be enough to change the mindsets of the people. Hello? Reality Check?

“The ball was never in your court! Don’t expect it to be passed into your court. Go to the opposing court and played their game and try to beat them to it. Then dribble the ball back to your court. That’s the only way! There is no use complaining and getting upset and refusing to play or refusing to comply with the rules. It is of NO USE!”

K.S. used the analogy of soccer to explain the political situation in Singapore and it is important that we realise that until we get the ball and bring it to our court, we have to play the game in their court with their rules (though as skewed as they can be).

Another problem which he touched on concerning the opposition is the lack of a balanced media coverage of the opposition leaders, who may seem to be virtual unknowns to the electorate. This is very important because if there are already so few interested political voters who actually do their research on their MPs and their policies, who else would know about such opposition aliens? It would be hard to vote for an alternative voice simply because it is the alternative and nothing else.

I must admit that I am literally a political virgin because:
a) I have never been involved in an election before in any capacity.
b) I have only been interested in Singapore politics for a few months after reading Dr Cherian’s book entitled “The Air Conditioned Nation”.
c) I do not have a strong grasp of our political history, which I had found to be very very interesting, especially during the election periods, from the Malay chauvinism of Mohamed Jufrie Mahmood and the Chinese ideologies of Tang Liang Hong, to the controversy behind J B Jeyaratnam.
d) I am a young soon-to-be member of the electorate who have not lived through the “tumultuous years” as our social studies textbook would call it.

These are solely my views on Singapore politics, with respect to the state of our opposition now. I have yet remained undecided on whether or not I would enter politics simply because I believe it would be virtual political suicide for a Malay to be a Malay politician. It would be akin to walking on a political tightrope, pulled across by Malay activists, Nationalists and members of my political party.

The Singapore Malays : The Dilemma of Development

“In Singapore today, the Malays have been the beneficiaries of socio-economic deprivation.”

Mr Wan Hussin Zoohri starts off his monograph entitled The Singapore Malays : The Dilemma of Development with such irony and sarcasm that I simply had to laugh. Who knows such Malay intellectuals emphathetic of the Malay problem could look at the issue with such humour? The juxtaposition of “beneficiaries” and “socio-economic deprivation” is just so revealing of the magnitude of the problem that humour seems to be the best way to send the message through.

I will be reviewing the introduction of his monograph which chronologically explains the historical reasons behind the Malay problem (or the Malay Dilemma as termed by Dr Mahathir or the Singapore Dilemma by Dr Lily Zubaidah Rahim. Why are they so obsessed with the word dilemma?) and the various solutions by many of the late Singaporean Malay scholars on the issue, which really had been both enlightening and encouraging. While the start of the whole monograph was humourous and disheartening, he provides a much more encouraging outlook for the Malay community if we were to follow the carefully-crafted solutions by the Malay scholars.

Mr Wan Hussin Zoohri emphatically highlights the importance of historical factors which include the feudalistic mentality of the Malay leaders in particular as well as the repressive (or not?) colonial policy in place. Economically, he underlies how the fate of the Malays were sealed when the Sultan and Temenggong threw away the opportunity of engaging in trade offered by Raffles. Mr Wan Hussin Zoohri’s response to this was particularly harsh:

“It is unbelievable that such a golden opportunity was dismissed with an air of misplaced arrogance.”

It was “misplaced” because the feudalistic mentality of Sultan which provided a knee-jerk aversion to trade and commerce excluded the Malay leaders from being engaged in trade which will soon chart the history of modern Singapore. While Mr Wan Hussin Zoohri argues that the colonial policies were repessive, Haji Sidek Saniff, in the forward to the monograph, wrote how Malay classes were discontinued in 1842 after eight years of existence due to poor response. The Sultan himself also had rejected Raffles’ offer of sending his Malay sons to study in India under the British. Echoing Mr Wan Hussin Zoohri’s stand was Abdullah Munshi. Writing in his autobiography entitled, Hikayat Abdullah, he reflected:

“I had observed their conduct, behaviour and habits from my youth up to the present time and found that, as time went on, so far from becoming more intelligent, they became more and more stupid.”

Again, I just had to laugh at this because of his lack of subtlety and blatant frankness. To quote Mr Wan Hussein Zoohri, “Abdullah’s pungent criticism of the Malays made him the first known Malay writer to emphatise with the problem.” Emphathy through criticism – surely that’s indicative of the lack of appreciation and realisation of the general Malay community of the Malay problem itself!

In the early twentieth century, there were many Malay intellectuals who were concerned with the relative socio-economic inertia that has plunged within the levels of the Malay community. For example, Mr Zainal Abidin bin Ahmad, also known as Za’ba, had written two noteworthy articles entitled “The Poverty of Malays” and “The Salvation of the Malays” in the Malay Mail in December 1923. He painted a particularly encouraging picture:

“They are not, however, naturally of poor intellect, or incapable of high morals. Potentially, they posess such qualities as much as do any other people. But the actualised part of this potentiality is still too poor to bear comparision with what we find in other progressive peoples in the country.”

In this, he expanded the definition of poverty as being inclusive of moral and intellect, notwithsatnding the socio-economic poverty which is still plaguing the Malay community now. His description of the Malay community then is still surprisingly accurate when applied to the Malay community now at some levels:

“Intellectually, the Malays are poor in knowledge, in culture and in general means of cultivating the mind. Their literature is poor and unelevating; their domestic surroundings from childhood are poor and seldom edifying; their religious life and practice is poor and far removed from the pure original teachings of the Prophet. In short, the Malays cut poor figures in every department of life.”

Za’ba identifies a two prong approach to solve the Malay problem: the right education and the unity of the Malays in working hard and cooperating among themselves. Mr Syed Hussein Alatas identifies a more individualised approach. He believes central to answering the dilemma posed by the community is the emphasis on “human factors” as compared to “objective factors”. “Human factors” would include the spirit to think and the will to work hard.

“It is this spirit which leads us to examine the objective circumstances surrounding us and ascertain the necessary steps to be taken to overcome the obstacles for progress in economics, education and in other fields.”

I think this is the best solution yet that I have read in solving the Malay dilemma. The need to look inclusively towards ourselves individually, to have the “spirit” as idealised by Mr Syed Hussein Alatas, before any attempt at change can be effected. With education as primarily highlighted by Za’ba and Mr Syed Hussein’s Alatas and his “spirit to think and the will to work hard”, I believe we can slowly progress forward. The extent by which we have progressed now is debatable. While we lament that we still have yet achieved parity with the other races, we can say we have progressed. But by how much? Until I get official statistics, I really cannot comment.

Protected: Andee’s Birthday Bbq and Sambal Stingray!

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Mee Bandung, inter alia

I was watching Table for 3 just now. Looking at all the delicious food they were eating, I couldn’t help but realise “hey! I’m eating something delicious too!” This was how it looked:

It was simply delicious. It was a colourful combination of soft yellow noodles, crunchy tauge/beansprouts and sawi/kailan (I think?), small slices of tender juicy meat and prawns – all soaked in a rich spicy broth, titilating all of your senses. It was a sight to behold, and an aroma that I simply couldn’t resist.

I nearly did not eat it, because my mum initially wanted to make mee goreng (fried noodles – the dried version of mee bandung). But luckily she asked me before she cooked and I managed to persuade her otherwise. It was a purely orgasmic experience! Sigh! Wish I can eat it again.

My mum is a fantastic cook. Only that the trouble is that most of us don’t appreciate the food she cooks. So from this day on, I shall dedicate some of my posts solely on the food that she cooks – a delectable reminder of orgasmic experiences I have lived through and portents of many more to come.

Singapore @ 40

This was a column written by siew91 in newsintercom. I find what he highlights truly reflective of what Singapore is and what we have become. The paradoxical attempts of injecting change, of socially engineering our society to meet several government selected goals and of being afraid of the side effects – these are many manifestations of our society not being ready to accept such changes.

Today we have every reason to rejoice. In 40 years we have succeeded beyond all expectations.” PM Lee said in the televised National Day address. Indeed, we have made much progress in many areas. But are we able to sustain our progress in a rapidly globalised world?

Economic advancement has brought us wealth and has given us a comfortable life. But it has, at the same time, also conditioned us with the narrow-minded belief that money can fix any problems.

We offer high salaries to keep corruption at bay while attempting to attract the best talents to join the government. However, if we are of the opinion that high salaries can prevent excesses or abuse of power, we need only look at the National Kidney Foundation ex-CEO, T T Durai, to teach us better.

To win an Olympics medal, we offer million-dollar rewards and import many foreign sports aces. To date, the Olympics medal remains a dream. In contrast, in the days of pre-independence and non-monetary-rewards, we had amongst us, a silver medalist driven solely by sheer passion for the sport and self-determination.

To sustain economic activity, we give incentives to MNC and foreign talents to invest, work, and live in Singapore. While this policy has worked for us, it is beginning to lose its effectiveness, as serious competition surfaces from other lower-cost countries in the region. With national borders fast dissolving, it is essential to be self-reliant in terms of human resources and talents.

Wealth and political stability have also rendered us a nation of people pathologically fearful of changes.

From the 1990s onwards, we have wanted to be a more open and civic society so that creativity and entrepreneurial spirit would flourish. But we are fearful that an open society will cause all hell to break loose and thus pose a threat to our national security. Thus whenever someone wants to hold a peaceful demonstration, even a pacifist one against war, we will not permit it.

Similarly, when there are too many critical or dissenting views in the internet, we panic and take pre-emptive measures to restore the status quo.

We have also tried to be democratic by having an elected President rather than a nominated one. But alas, we are again fearful that we are not matured enough to make our own decision, so we have a commission to pre-select the President for us!

Unless we are willing to break away from our narrow-minded mercantilistic, protectionist mentality, we might end up like what MM Lee once said, “watch[ing] the world pass us by”. Our success would unfortunately then become our downfall.

Its very sad to realise that all these contradictions are really true. That we might have to “break away from our narrow-minded merchantilistic, protectionist mentality” so that we can move forward.