Voting 'conspiracy'?
I refer to the article, "Elections matter even if everyone knows who will win" published on The Straits Times, Friday 27th Jan 05, Insight. Are our elections just a mockup to ease pro-democratic allies and citizens? Is it really necessary?
Lim mentioned in her article that,"...the difference between an American democracy and a Singapore democracy... [is that] we in Singapore know way before polling day what the outcome of a general election (GE) will be."
Voting is the choice of people deciding the choice of government yet strangely, this choice of government had been unchanged for a few decades now. The status quo had diminished our GE to nothing short of a holiday: a mockery for politics. PAP had never risked losing seats in the Parliament in their 40 years or so of power.
Undeniably, there is no harm as yet to keep them in power. They have done a good job as a government of the republic and I (along with most Singaporeans) have no reservations to their stay in the Parliament. With their clean, transparent take in leading the country, corruption is too far to be smelt. It almost seems like we could do away with the polls for a couple of years.
However, the question lies in the very basis of democracy - to give people the power of selecting their government. If we do not have the polls, we are writing an open invitation for autocracy which is as risky as communism or dictatorship. The implications of allowing any political party to automatically go to power would create so much assurance that it may start to take for granted the situation.
Then, we will be heading downhill.
Polls in short keep the political part in power on their feet as well as allow people to dispel any emerging autocratic leaders. Let us not allow a moment of convenience destroy any empathy of our citizens towards maintaining the integrity of the Government.
Leaders, not Saints
CommentaryI refer to the article published on The Straits Times entitled, "
Let leaders come off the pedestal" 15 September 2004. Singapore's society can relate very much to the Western societies where old leaders are retired and replaced by young people. In fact, the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) system is a direct representation of our inclination towards the West. It is a system to generate new leaders for our nation.
Our country's corruption-free government shows how the practice of minimal compromises to mistakes aid in producing a successful government. The rank of 4th in the world for the cleanest is not achieved without some being harsh to our leaders in terms of being role models for all. For example, the immediate replacement of the National Kidney Foundation’s chief, TT Durai, as well as all top-ranking officials of the organisation when corruption was detected gives little room to afford such atrocities. Without a doubt, the withdrawal of the NMP Cynthia Han was all but expectable. Our system runs such that wrongdoers are never permitted to obtain authority so as to assure its integrity.
Looking at other parts of Asia such as South Korea, some form of pedestal is given to leaders or important figures. When the scientific scandal of Mr. Hwang unfolded slowly, the population is still very much supporting their national idol and refusing to accept that he had indeed made some mistakes. It was not until when international community demanded and probe which revealed the debacle that the people began to lose hope and accepted his failure. If not for the evidences that were produced, the allegations would have had no effect on his popularity. This faith in leaders, as the author suggests, really does tempt leaders to abuse their authority.
Singapore, like the United States, does apply pedestals on authority figures too but only on those who have shown humongous successes. One good example is our Senior Minister Lee who gains respect nationwide for his successes in building up our country. Even after his retirement, his remaining in the parliament to serve as an advisor was supported and not at all debated. His failures were not entirely absent, for example in the failure of the Su Zhou industrial park which apparently was an unwise investment. Yet, he was always well-respected.
I agree wholeheartedly Harvard professor Ronald Heifetz proposal of leadership as an activity instead of a rank. We have to face it, the world is not perfect and so are people. If we continue to confer impossible expectations to leaders who can exercise leadership, we will find ourselves to be losing more and more people with excellent leadership. The basic trait a leader must have is to take risks and accept challenges posted to them as stated by the professor. Our expectations forbid or discourage our leaders to do so. They are crudely put,
handicapped.
By treating leadership as an activity, it gives leaders no room for serious mistakes still but offers them a second chance. They can continue their services as a leader with less glamour but still, contributing. The understanding of informal authority will encourage all citizens to give constructive feedback to the government and it could solve the problem of us being mere followers.
We have lived long enough with the stereotype of "listeners" branded on us. This paradigm change will certainly be a good break from pedestals for the leaders and give people or failed politicians more voice in the workings of the government. Our society will then walk towards success with more leadership contributons.
Vocabulary in context:
pedestal (n) - A position of high regard or adoration
scepticism (n) - A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety
acquiescence (n) - Passive assent or agreement without protest
resilient (adj) - Marked by the ability to recover readily, as from misfortune
advocate (v) - To speak, plead, or argue in favor of
Commentary on Ren Ci Charity show
Having just watched the section of the show when Venerable Shi Ming Yi wept on national television, I feel I simply have one thing to write on: Singaporeans are still really compassionate.
The show didn't start on a good note for one. Everyone was still in a fog of distrust towards charity organisations in Singapore owing to the NKF saga. It was so much a loss reputation that all the artists had little hope for a successful charity show. Their only gleam of hope is nohing short of a miracle.
There was no mistake in Singaporean's struggle between justice and sympathy. Halfway through the show, we were so pathetically far off from the targeted 600,000 calls. The meter was jumping wearily at 10 or 20 calls; a speed never once recorded in our charity shows. A lot of questions have popped up after the saga. Should we still donate since 'only' 1% of our efforts go to the patients? Are there more TT Durais in the organisations? Shall we teach the organisations a lesson by sabotaging this show so corruption will cease?
All were made clear in a short speech by the reverend. He spoke about how worrying everyone was to do the show at this chaotic time. How everyone in his organisation and committee for the show had been unjustly mistaken as "cheaters". About how the patients are going to struggle in their helplessness. I can be pretty certain, his tears were evoked by the fact that no one blamed were actually involved! Our independent minds seem to have tipped the balance the other way, we are intending to punish the victims. Something is terribly wrong in this.
Singapore's reputation had been jeopardised with the charity scandal. Countries had modelled after us to start charity programmes and yet the root of these programmes became the rotten one. I feel we have been mocked at enough for this one man's mistakes. The reverend made it clear with the pains from his face and from the depths of his magnanimous heart that the innocent had been hurt enough.
In an instant, these words reverberated through the nation. The gloomy rain surrounding him seemed to have cleared. There was no more confusion.
He has again, touched all our hearts.
It was not a miracle that the society's kindness had been revived. Telephone calls are now jumping by the hundreds now. His simple message doubled the calls from a 200,000 to 400,000 in a short thirty minutes. I am guilty. How could we have compared this man to a corrupted official? He had cleaned up a mess he did not and never would create.
I am praying that we - as a country - would hit the target for too many reasons which most importantly, is the patients. And not forgetting the efforts put in; the shame suffered. Fortunately, we are still a compassionate society now I can conclude. No one judged the mistakes; the purpose of the show was fulfilled. We have showed the foreigners who lent a helping hand that, here controversies are handled with faith here in Singapore, with enough faith in our fellow citizens that mistakes will never be repeated.
In the final scene, with everyone grateful that calls were only 100,000 short from the target, I really think we have succeeded. It could have been worse but it couldn't be better. Some damage
had to be visibly done to remind each of us one of the very bases of humanity - being true.
