siteowner adds this link to the originating post
________________________________________
KTM, you can stay till the day the govt listens to your opinions about upgrading and public transport. There are others who place greater value on political space and the freedom to express opinions, and who are wise enough to realise when this is going to happen. They are not waiting for handouts, and neither are they spoilt brats. Don't be so sure who the fool really is.
"The Singaporeans who claim that they want to emigrate because the Garmen doesn't listen to them are stupid and immature. Please lah, that's a completely IRRATIONAL reason."
I'm afraid i have to completely disagree with this statement.
Contrary to the trivialisation that KTM would have us believe, i think 'being listened to' is absolutely crucial to one's national identity, to one's feeling of being part of a family. that is because listening to someone entails accepting the person's point of view, respecting him/her as a person, and above all acknowledging that person's existence and recognising it as valid.
when the government does not listen, it effectively rejects and disowns those whom it does not listen to. in doing so, it says to its people, "you are not important," "we do not care about u," "shut up and f*ck off."
Is wanting to leave, then, an irrational, stupid and immature reason? On the contrary, i think it is perfectly valid to want to leave a country that disowns you.
Obviously KTM has not had the experience of being rejected from his community in a major way.
the issue about not being listened to is of much greater import than getting your mother to cook chicken for dinner. it is more like trying to get your mother to acknowledge who you are, when she constantly rejects your very being.
Good piece. I've expressed similar sentiments about being gracious to those who leave before, but I can't seem to locate it (it's buried in the comments on my old blog somewhere).
But I do I wonder if the category of "spoilt brats" is not as homogeneous as you seem to suggest, which makes your argument somewhat more reductionistic than it need be at that point. Presumably, in some cases, the complaint is meant to be the converse of the thought that they see a better, more open political climate elsewhere--their "better opportunity". (Edit: I see that both sporescores and inspir3d have expressed a similar point?)
Perhaps another way to put my point is simply this: I think those who stay can afford to be gracious to all who leave (assuming that the leavers do not intend harm to Singapore)--whether or not they might come across as spoilt brats. Especially if they really are spoilt brats, we should all the more wish them "good luck"--because they are going to need that whereever they go.
Something else: I think that the point about being gracious works for both stayers and leavers. In many cases, the latter too, can afford to not play the blame game--especially blaming "Singapore", as if everyone (rather than more specific individuals and groups) was somehow responsible or complicit for the troubles one faces.
In short: the less needless recrimination the better. But I guess I am being idealistic.
sporescores,
The KTM has no illusions that the Garmen will listen to his opinions about upgrading and public transport, but that's not stopping the KTM from blabbering what. Doesn't cost him a cent also.
As the KTM has said, to those Singaporeans who wish to venture abroad for better career propects or because they feel that they can find better educational prospects for their children, he wishes them well. :-P
Those who leave because they want dunno what greater political space must be smoking some kind of weed. So these fellas go to the US, the US Garmen will listen to them hor? If they go to Australia, the Australian Garmen will listen to them meh??
The KTM is happily expressing his opinions daily now and feeling quite shiok leh. How come you say got no freedom of expression leh? Dunno lah, perhaps the KTM has spoken too soon. If he gets hauled up by ISD, perhaps he might change his tune. For now, it seems fine and dandy. :-P Actually hor, it seems also that you're happily blabbering away, so what are you complaining about? 
If just because Catherine Lim and Mr Brown kenna sepaked by Garmen and people dare not speak up, that's just being chicken hor. Has little to do with freedom of expression. If people want to open their gaps, then must be prepared to kenna robust response from Garmen, and respond equally robustly.
This is slightly out of topic--but not completely (I guess) because it does go to the heart of what is likely to be the most contentious point in KTM's post. I am actually quite curious as to what people mean when they say that the government "does not listen to them", or that they "have no voice". That is, is there a more concrete, less abstract way to spell out what would it be like if the government "listens to me"? (For instance, surely it can't mean: if some policy is implemented and I am unhappy about it and complains about it, the government will shut down the policy...)
inspir3d,
Thanks for your comments. No offense intended (in case you somehow got offended).
I agree that my point about spoilt brats trivalizes the matter, but there's a point to be made: the blog entry that I referred to has made no attempts to explain WHY the Garmen is at fault with concrete examples. Neither have you.
Perhaps you can enlighten us by explaining how the Garmen has rejected and disowned these people you are referring to. In any case, if the case in point is that people are leaving because they kenna disowned, it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT matter altogether from one where the Garmen just didn't listen.
Huichieh,
Aiyoh, I think you have misread the KTM's blog. Not suggesting that we should be nasty to the spoilt brats lah. Be nasty to them for what?? Scully next time they strike it rich and we need their help/money how?
Just highlighting this dunno what "Garmen dun listen to me so I emigrate" excuse is super ultra lame. The dunno what "disowned citizen" reason that we seem to be hearing from inspir3d is however new to the KTM, so let's see what he has to say.
KTM, you'll be surprised at how seriously other countries take political discourse, especially those that you mentioned. Even non-govts like the World Bank/IMF want to engage protesters/critics. You may be happy talking without being listened to, but do not assume this is what is something everyone should live happily with. See inspir3d's comment.
KTM:
Haha! Then perhaps you have misread my point too. I'm not saying that you are saying that we should be nasty to the "spoilt brats". But I am suggesting that, for instance, calling them "spoilt brats" might not be the best way to go about educating them...
I believe that the point raised by inspir3d is very much the heart of the issue in the sense that it points to a less lame reason than "Garmen dun listen to me so I emigrate"--which will also mean that we do both those who left for this reason and ourselves injustice by categorizing them together with "spoilt brats".
sporescores, inspir3d:
Having said all of the above, I will be honest and confess that I have not been impressed by the complaint of "I have no voice", "I feel disowned by my country" before--because I've never come across coherent and well thought through articulations of just what the sentiment really amounts to. But I am open tot he possibility that I may yet learn something new and important. Hence the request in my previous comment.
sporescores,
I think you are missing the point ENTIRELY. The question is the following: you got a Singaporean who feels that he is not being listened to in his own country. If you tell me that if he goes to some other country, his views will be listened to, i.e., he opens his gap, says the magic word and what he says get done, I say to you, "wise move, his lot has improved". If the fella goes to this other country, opens his gap and the Garmen clap clap, pats his back and nothing really happens anyway, then explain to the KTM how his lot has improved. In the process, he would have left his friends and family behind.
Cannot be lah. It would be INSANE for a Singaporean to leave Singapore unless he thinks his fortunes will improve, i.e. he will get better pay, he will have better prospects, or his kids will have better education. Whatever. That's fair enough. The KTM is inclined to believe that no rational person would decide to emigrate for dunno what political space, otherwise.
The KTM is unable to understand inspir3d's comment about being "disowned". Huichieh alluded to the same. We're both waiting to be educated. Please help us out if you can.
Advertisement: KTM, your post http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/
...tial.html#links
already shows how little opinion expression means to you.
Expression is important, and engagement is even more important. Anyone who isn't on sedatives can look to countries overseas where there is active engagement between govt and citizens that shape decisions.
Huichieh,
Whoever said anything about "educating" the "spoilt brats"?? They ask for education meh??? If not, volunteer to educate them for what?
More seriously, you have forced me to let the cat out of the bag. Like you, the KTM is really trying to understand this obscure notion of "I have no voice", "I feel disowned by my country". It's too inefficient to go around asking people who feels this way.
The most efficient way to understand this problem is to write some provocative to elicit a response from the people who identify with this issue and then see if we can learn anything from the process.
Let us not forget that education works in a funny way in the blogosphere. :-P Who is the teacher? And who is the student? That's a very profound question actually....
KTM, people can emigrate for different reasons, which are very personal. Political space and engagement can rank quite highly in some people's minds and there is nothing worng with that. Your idea that the premise for emigration should stem solely from material desires might apply to someone like yourself, but you should not assume that it is the only acceptable reason.
Somehow you think that govts elsewhere do not listen to their people. I would advise you to read more and if possible, talk to people from those countries about the difference in their countries.
sporescores,
Thanks for advertising my blog.
Dun kuncheong hor, a robust response is waiting for you for your comments on my blog. Currently got internet connection issues. Akan datang can?
Let's not digress. If you got anything smart to say about the issue at hand, let's hear it; if not, then let's wait for someone else to come along.
KTM, you have written about how your letters to forum don't get published. Perhaps you are trying to be cute here by saying something opposite to the effect, but it doesn't quite gel with reality. Remember the recent official stance on how MSM and blogs are treated differently. The former is serious stuff. The latter is noise, not to be taken seriously. Officially, you belong only to the latter.
KTM: Ok, I grok your strategy; but you are definitely saying way too much now.
All else: Still waiting for less abstract, more concrete specifications of just what it means by "the goverment listens to me/engages me/etc." And please, I've read my share of books, talk to my share of people from "those countries"--heck, I've lived with them for years--but I want to hear you articulate the matter.
KTM, if you have something intelligent to say to justify why you think USA and Australia do not engage their people seriously, please do so quickly.
Huichieh,
Boh pian. Realised that some people are a bit dense and cannot understand if I dun draw the picture on the wall, so I kwai kwai draw for them loh. :-P
Eh, you wanna help me out by explaining to our friend how the US Garmen listens to its people? I actually know nothing about the Oz Garmen and I was just assuming that it's not very different. :-P
I'm very tired after writing a very long post tonight and responding to a lot of comments. You also probably read more than me, and people also asked for something "intelligent", which the KTM is not capable of. You do me this favour and I'd buy you coffee when I'm back in town can? :-P
Huichieh Loy, in Singapore your opinions like KTM's belong to blogs/noise. In some other countries, they would be allowed into the mainstream media. If you and KTM still need further clarification, I think perhaps I'm not the one who is 'dense'.
sporescores:
So in some countries, my opinions will be "allowed into the mainstream media"? What's the presupposition of such a thought? Why should I care one way or other that my opinions will be so allowed or not so allowed? So that I will be able to influence policy? Why should I care to do that?
Let me put it this way: why must everything that I (or KTM) say be taken as an attempt to persuade the prince? Can't ordinary joe citizens have a chat with each other--in the hope that we can learn something new? What has the government's opinion that this is noise have anything to do with it? (Actually, I think the government's opinion may actually be beneficial rather than an obstacle to my objectives--it really is none of their business...)
But we have not progressed very far. I am still in the dark about what you mean by "expression", "engagement". What I want is very concrete. I need the below blank filled in:
"The government engages me when it is the case that ___________"
Until that blank is filled in, we are talking in the dark.
* * * * *
KTM:
You are basically asking me to describe--within the confines of the comments section--both the promise and reality of the US political system?! Cannot lah. I still want to sleep one you know. Maybe I will try to furnish specific points where they are called for, ok?
But before going to bed, let me give our dear friends a clue. I do believe that there is something in the complaint about "expression" and "engagement"--but it is not best articulated the way it is usually articulated, viz., "the gahmen does not listen to me".
One word--"liberty"--and rightly or wrongly, justifiably or unjustifiably, some people don't feel like they enjoy enough of it in Singapore. The problematic thing is that this one word actually hides at least two major concepts, both of which are hinted at in the complaints, if only in a very confused manner.
1. Political Liberty--the freedom or power to exercise sovereignty, to have a say in how the government should run, what policies to implement, what laws are passed, etc.
2. Civil Liberty--the freedom from the government's interference, the freedom to do whatever one wants (subject to everyone else enjoying like freedom).
They are not the same thing and can even confict with each other.
Hopefully, this can be used to construct a more thoughtful articulation of just what is (allegedly or otherwise) lacking in Singapore...
ADD: Not to say that the above exhaust the possibilities. There is also a cluster of issues to do with "national pride", "national identity"--which are only tangentially related to issues to do with liberty. The soup gets murkier.
"Why should I care one way or other that my opinions will be so allowed or not so allowed (into the mainstream)? ... Can't ordinary joe citizens have a chat with each other--in the hope that we can learn something new?"
In countries like Cuba, a lot of talk goes on only between individuals too. It seems you are ok with this.
Likewise in the good old United States of America. Believe it or not, most of the talk--and much profitable and enjoyable talk too--that goes on in the land of the free are between citizens who aren't thinking of how best to influence the government.
I'm not sure but are you suggesting that unless discussion and exchange lead to an actual influence upon the government, they are somehow futile, pointless? That seems odd because your own comments sure don't look as if they are meant to influence policy. (What are your motivations anyway?)
Still, until the original issue is further clarified, this will be futile. OK (telling myself): I will go to bed now.
Some of the talk in USA goes on very publicly in the mass media too, believe it or not. More open, not private, discussion as a nation leads to a greater possibility for change for the better.
Btw, like you, I have no motivations, just idle e-blabber with individuals like yourself on opinions that I find curious. Just to convince myself that you and KTM really believe that freedom of expression is the same here as in the USA. Interesting.
Yes of course "some of the talk in USA goes on very publicly in the mass media too". (What do you think I spend more time reading--the Straits Times?) But nowadays, the most interesting stuff (in the US) are no longer on the traditional media but on the blogs. "Greater possibility for change for the better"? Maybe. But one must be careful not to misunderstand the phenomenon: significant policy change, even in the US, do not come about by virtue of public discussion on its own (either in traditional or alternative mass media), but by the indirect pressure it exerts on the the democratic-legislative process. And that pressure is not a straightforward one--because the talk-pressure relationship is often reversed: don't forget to throw into the mix the role of the special interest group lobbies ("K Street"), whose job on behalf of their (minority) constitutents is precisely to generate the appropriate "talk" and "public opinion".
But enough about the US: we are still no further from the beginning since you still have not taken any steps to answer the earlier question. What goes into the blank in:
"The government engages me when it is the case that ___________"
Concretely, in the Singapore context?
Until that blank is filled in, the only specification of the complaint remains that Singapore is not the US or Australia, which is a very strange complaint...
"but by the indirect pressure it exerts on the the democratic-legislative process." Good that you at least know the value.
Your blank will remain a blank because the govt does not engage me. I thought that has obviously been my point. Ask mr brown whether the govt engages him.
Why don't you fill in the following blank:
Singapore's level of political freedom of expression is no less than that of the US and Australia because ___________
"The Singaporeans who claim that they want to emigrate because the Garmen doesn't listen to them are stupid and immature. Please lah, that's a completely IRRATIONAL reason."
If the deeper reason for saying 'Govt doesn't listen to me' is one that is based on concern for the country, AND the frustration stems from Not being able to improve their own country in certain ways, then I think it's not right to label them 'stupid' and 'immature'. This applies even if KTM thinks the reasoning is wrong. Even if KTM is right, 'wrong reasoning' does not mean stupidity nor immaturity (nor irrationality) - these are strong words that, in my opinion, should be reserved for people with ill intentions. Even HS's reasoning goes wrongly sometimes - I call this 'a lapse of logic (a missing step or a step gone wrong in the argumentation or interpretation)' (see my comments on HuiChieh's post regarding Andy Ho's article, which Huichieh has successfully rebutted.) Does this mean HS is stupid, immature, or irrational?
sporescores:
The assumptions you make...
ONE: when did I ever claim that "Singapore's level of political freedom of expression is no less than that of the US and Australia"? Like you and most other people, I believe that the statement is false (disregarding for now the confusion of "political freedom of expression"--which is that? Political freedom, or freedom of expression, or both, or the freedom of political expression...).
TWO: when did I deny the value of, say, political freedom, or freedom of expression, or the freedom of political expression? (But what I don't assume from the onset, however, is that these freedoms are so important as to automatically trump all other considerations without further argument. Nor should you assume--without thinking through it more carefully--that every type of influence that might be exerted upon the democratic-legislative process by the unbridled freedom of speech is an unalloyed good. The "K Street" phenomenon is not, by itself, obviously in the common good.)
But saying (or thinking) that people enjoy less of these freedoms in Singapore in itself does not get us anywhere. In fact, it is perfectly possible that those who mouth it the loudest do not really understand what they are saying, or even if they have an inking, they do not think deeper into the implications of what they want. Too often, the utterance has as much cognitive content as "Singapore--boo!"
But I--and I am hoping that esteemed you as well--am interested to know just what is involved in the charge. For otherwise, we will be talking about valuing something we know not what--hardly helpful for anyone. Your claim that "Your blank will remain a blank because the govt does not engage me" remains a cypher since the meaning of the italicised words is not obvious. In fact, one might say that in order for your claim--and your own fill in the blank question--to make sense, there is already a presupposed answer to my question. But what is that answer?
Unlike the fill in the blank question you are asking, my question makes no assumption as to whether the Singapore government engages its citizens or not. It is more elementary than that: what does it mean to say that they do, or--in your case--they don't. Unless we get clearer as to what is being accused, we can't rationally proceed to ask the more important question: What are the consequences? Can anything be done at all? If so, what can be done? If no, how then? And until the blank is filled in, KTM's charge that those who leave on the reason that "the gahmen does not listen to me", leaves on account of a lame reason continues to stand.
(Let me be clear about something else: don't assume that I actually agree with KTM on everything, or even anything--not that you should assume you have fully understood KTM's point).
I have, hopefully, given a clue. Perhaps the issue about engagement can be further cashed out in terms of liberty (of either kind, or both, but one has to be clear), i.e., the lack thereof. But the details remains to be worked out. Another (related) clue is provided by Heavenly Sword, who speaks of the "frustration [that] stems from Not being able to improve their own country in certain ways"--also a worthy avenue that can be explored and further elaborated.
* * * * *
Heavenly Sword:
I agree with you on the point about some of the 'names' that KTM used (see my third comment), though I might be coming from a slightly different angle. But I am really hoping that people will now look pass the 'names' and focus on the substantive issues.
* * * * *
ADD: While I am at it, let me forstall one more unnecessary assumption. I do not think that those who left for reasons to do with the experience of being "without a voice", etc., in Singapore are--for that reason alone--spoilt brats, "quiters", or that they are somehow blameworthy. In fact, I wish them the very best, and I invite them to help the rest of us unenlightened folks get clearer on just what the issue is. (But I am very skeptical that all of those who did leave, or that the majority of the 53% that said that they would consider doing so, have this reason chiefly in mind...)
Ah... Huichieh Loy... finally you admit the difference between Singapore and some other countries. Saves me the trouble of elaborating more on this.
"Nor should you assume--without thinking through it more carefully--that every type of influence that might be exerted upon the democratic-legislative process by the unbridled freedom of speech is an unalloyed good."
Since when did I say all influences from all opinions expressed are good? The key here is the openness for political discussion. Anyway, you've already admitted that you do not deny the value. So again, I am spared from having to dwell on this simple concept.
I hope that having thought through this and made these admissions, you are now more enlightened about why this is a factor for some people who leave, and hence not a lame reason. Whether it is the only reason is really a secondary issue.
"(But I am very skeptical that all of those who did leave, or that the majority of the 53% that said that they would consider doing so, have this reason chiefly in mind...)"
Reminds me of someone who hated the taste of liquor and who insisted that his friends like to drink not because they like the taste but because they like to get high. This despite his friends explaining to him that they really do like the taste. I suppose if one narrowly imposes his own set of values and tendencies to judge others, one will be skeptical of others' motivations.
sporescores:
Ah... Huichieh Loy... finally you admit the difference between Singapore and some other countries. Saves me the trouble of elaborating more on this."
If I never denied the above, what's there to 'admit'--as if I am hiding something?
Since when did I say all influences from all opinions expressed are good? The key here is the openness for political discussion. Anyway, you've already admitted that you do not deny the value. So again, I am spared from having to dwell on this simple concept.
Since when did I say that you believe the above? I am telling you--in all honesty--what I believe. Not everything is about you--not that I am saying that you believe that.
(Incidentally, what I said was I would not assume "that every type of influence that might be exerted upon the democratic-legislative process by the unbridled freedom of speech is an unalloyed good". This is actually different from "that every opinion expressed is good". The phemonenon I have in mind is quite far from the notion that some opinions expressed are somehow 'bad'... But since this is not a simple concept, let's not dwell on it.)
As for the 53% thing--I am not being skeptical of people's motivations--how could I? I have no ability to divine their thoughts (except, perhaps as they choose to reveal themselves in their speech and deed). What I am skeptical of of the notion that the majority of the 53% have such motivations. Again, please note that the two claims are different.
Why am I skeptical? Purely an issue of evidence. That is, I'm waiting to see the evidence; until then, it will be epistemically irresponsible of me to jump to conclusions. All that the ST report said was "But why are young Singaporeans more keen to emigrate? Their reasons range from 'stress' to 'economic lures of foreign countries'."--which is rather vague and does not even mention anything about the gahmen disowning people or not listing to people. But I am open to possibilities, especially if you have access to a more detailed report.
I hope that having thought through this and made these admissions, you are now more enlightened about why this is a factor for some people who leave, and hence not a lame reason. Whether it is the only reason is really a secondary issue.
I don't care whether it is "the only reason". I don't even think that it is a lame reason (go back to my very first comment)--even though, blankly stated, without elaboration, without further explanation, it sounds lame. Let's say that those who see it as a good reason do the reason grave injustice by not coming forward to help us, who do not discern the reason, to be able to see just what this reason amounts to. This is important to me because those who leave saying that "Singapore gives me no voice" often appear to take themselves serious, so I am led to the impression that there is something serious here, something worth my while investigating.
* * * * *
SUMMATION
We can sum up the discussion so far in the following manner. KTM wrote a long article in which there is a bit that is controversial (the issue of the "spoilt brats"). Commenters (mind you--including myself, in my cvery first comment) point out that there is something problematic about that bit.
The disagreement is whether or not those who leave for the reason that "the gahmen does not listen to me", "I have no voice", etc., thus expresses a good reason.
Logically, the way forward is to get clear on just what is at stake, just what is it that is controversial beyond the rather vague formulations. Only with the clearer picture can we then go on to consider the merits of the disagreement. Hence as early as my second comment, I requested:
I am actually quite curious as to what people mean when they say that the government "does not listen to them", or that they "have no voice". That is, is there a more concrete, less abstract way to spell out what would it be like if the government "listens to me"? (For instance, surely it can't mean: if some policy is implemented and I am unhappy about it and complains about it, the government will shut down the policy...)
In the hope that the discussion can move forward. But after all the back and forth, we haven't really come very far. We still don't have a clear and distinct articulation of just what the problem is beyond "the gahmen does not listen to me..." (or something like that). What we have are various recriminations about whether or not KTM, or myself, value the freedom of expression, whether or not the US is different from Singapore (the answer is: of course! There is something called the Grand Canyon in the States; there is no such thing in Singapore), rather not-too-careful grasp of the things said (thus confusing "I am skeptical of the notion that the majority of group X has motivation Y" with "I am skeptical of the notion that A--who says that he has motivation Y, really has that motivation"), various "ah hah" type statements insinuating that somehow, I have 'admitted' something as if there is something that I am hiding, and so on and so forth, insinuations about how now that I have 'admitted' something and thought through them, I should now either agree with you or shut up...
Is this all there is to "open discussion"? Is this the best that we can get from an advocate of freedom of expression? I expect better--and I am open to the possibility of better.
But it is not too late. I am willing, if you are willing, to get down to business so that we can all still profit from this exchange. So let's get back to the beginning again: just what is the content of the claim that "the gahmen does not listen to me"? Just waht--in concrete terms, are you saying that the gahmen does or does not do? But are you willing to do your part in this discussion?
Amazing how this discussion has developed... dunno why Grand Canyon can also be thrown in... how about Himalayas...
It's simply this: before we even talk about whether the govt listens, we should look at whether people are allowed to speak freely in the first place. You already said that there is less freedom of speech here. So I don't see what further clarifications I need to make.
Heh, I'm wondering whether I should jump into this discussion. I can't provide a treatise on the problem of "the gahmen does not listen to me", but maybe the casino debate can serve as an example for illumination.
In the debate in the media and with feedback sessions, press releases by religious organisations and even the opposition parties' statements (who I might add are usually moribund on public issues during "peacetime"), the anti-casino voices were loud, and many of their concerns sincere and well-taken. Throughout this, if memory serves me correctly, most of the PAP honchos maintained radio silence or made suitable noises about encouraging a healthy debate. Balakrishnan and perhaps others tossed out a point or two, Balakrishnan himself the libertarian one about trusting people to make up their minds about whether to gamble or not. The impression the government gave was that of a neutral or still-uncommitted arbiter between the two stands, so many got a rude shock when the PM made his announcement that he had decided to build not one but two, and in the coming days and weeks, as if by the snap of his fingers, all his ministers, junior ministers and backbenchers trotted out all the positive arguments they had heard in private from the developers, or which they had thought of themselves but had declined to say up till then.
It might well be that there exists a silent pro-casino or don't-care-either-way majority, and so the best decision was made after accounting for those views. There are people out there who would be disgruntled no matter what, but I think most can accept the idea that they speak up about something but the outcome doesn't go their way. Maybe the other side has better arguments, maybe they are the majority - fine. But the way the whole thing was conducted - the pro-casino side in private, and the government in a stealthy intellectual position - led to anti-casino voices dominating the public debate only to be handed the fait accompli - the opposite verdict together with "new" supporting evidence and arguments, and the whole package now christened "IRs." It was also belatedly clarified that this was in fact a decision for the Cabinet to make, not Parliament, and certainly not the people, although we are assured that Chiam and Low were invited to the developers' briefings. The biggest insult to injury was to be told that now everyone must be constructive and suggest ways to minimise the social costs of gambling, or even better, start training Singaporeans for jobs in the IRs. Everything fell into line, everything snapped into place.
This raised a very bad stink. (For recent times, only the NKF scandal could beat it.) Many people believe LHL and Co. intended to mislead the people with a faux public debate when they already made the decision themselves. (I don't, but that's because I see LHL more as a clumsy politician used to his elitist ways, rather than a Machiavellian figure.) From this point of view, all those months of debate and feedback was all a wayang, with elements like that "IR" rebranding particularly Orwellian. It surely wasn't the first time in Singapore history cynics have pooh-poohed the idea of feedback to the government, but the resentment ran pretty high: even people like me who were pro-casino (pro-IR) or neutral felt it. Nobody likes being made to look stupid; that's what the LHL government did in this, its first major policy push. "Why are you only talking about casinos? We were talking about IRs all along! Get with the programme, man!"
To bring us back to the subject of KTM's blog post, it's possible that by justifying emigration with "the gahmen does not listen to me", one in fact lacks the temperament for democratic compromise, or for real activism for one's cause in the first place. I say that maybe this frustration and despair is not tied to any particular policy, but from "meta-lessons" from incidents like the casino debate. People are aggrieved that the government will act to serve "the nation's interest" regardless of what they personally think about the matter, and that our system of plebiscitarian dictatorship - a revelatory term I recently learnt from Hayek - means you can do pitifully little about it unless you are yourself headhunted to join the PAP elite someday.
One thing that struck me in the US was that nobody told me what I should do or how I should do things. Everybody is free to pursue their own dreams. Life was what they make of it, and success is self-defined. There isn't even a very clear definition of "The American Dream" except that people understand it to be the ability to achieve a better life through hard work.
Compare that to Singapore slogans that extol the need to smile 4 million smiles, speak good English, speak good Mandarin, become doctor/lawyer, make lots of money, chase the 5Cs, the list goes on. Good grief! We are educated enough to make our own decisions in life. There's no need for someone to nag us daily through the media to tell us what they think is "good for Singapore".
This comes back to the point that the government doesn't act on feedback. They may organize feedback sessions or debate matters in parliament, but they will still do what they set out to do despite what they hear. Think CPF cuts, how casino legislation was pushed through, and the incessant commercials exhorting Singaporeans to smile. People can say what they want on the Internet, but they cannot say it in the mainstream media, and hardly anybody is going to read what they say online anyway. What voice is a voice stuck in a vacuum?
Our Former PM once said, "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today." Well, we're way beyond that now, but the government doesn't trust Singaporeans enough to step aside and let people do their own thing. Baby bonus, fly your flag during national day, blog responsibly, be entreprenueral and start your own business... Have you seen a developed nation that has a government as patronizing as ours?
All these programmes work against the innate inclinations of Singaporeans by pre-programming them to behave in a government-mandated way that is not necessarily in the best interest of this country despite what our technocrats think. The overwhelming number of campaigns stifles imagination and creativity. People are forced to go abroad to pursue their dreams because what the government thinks people should do doesn't reflect what people really want to do. This results in the brain drain KTM mentioned.
I generally find KTM's structural take on emigration kinda economistic, predicated on employment and educational opportunities. The classic Push/Pull model. I agree to most extent but i don't think it give enough attention to the emotional complexities in one's decision-making process in emigration, like ties to a place, rather than to a country (Not that i think it is the intention of KTM to do so in the first place)
"just what is the content of the claim that "the gahmen does not listen to me?"
Hi, Huichieh,
this is very similar to the GE2006 LKY's televised Q&A session with one of the journalist's "politcal climate of fear" question. heh. Anyway, i believe it's very difficult to distill exactly or empirically what constitutes of "the govt does not listen to me" claim.
Rather, i considered it as a (mis?????)perception that arises out of
(1) the longstanding PAP dominant rule,
(2) the mainly depoliticised governmental policy-making processes,
(3) the air of infallibility and high-handedness it protrays itself in its policy implementation in the name of efficiency and speed. And I can possibly quite say most people do not really try too hard to take apart such a perception (or they want to).
Pertaining to the emigration issue, I suggest that such negativity of this perception is enough to be rationalised in ONE's decision-making whether to emigrate and lead him/her to BELIEVE that the grass is DEFINITELY greener on the other side in the area of political open-ness. Which may or may not be necessarily true. There can be uncircumventable boundaries which immigrants as perceived "outsiders" cannot cross as well.
The stayer-quitter rhetorics, if my memory serves me well, concerned more about some government scholars breaking bonds to stay in their "adopted" countries. I can't really remember what triggered off that comment. Anyway, the more updated rhetoric concerning emigration is now "heartlanders-cosmopolitan" divide - very aligned with the "global city" thingy.
Huichieh said: For instance, surely it can't mean: if some policy is implemented and I am unhappy about it and complains about it, the government will shut down the policy...
I think what people want is at the very least to feel that they are being listened to. It's true that in most countries the opinions of citizens takes, at best, a long time to get through the system and result in actual changes in policies. However, the citizens at least have the impression that this is possible. This may be an illusion; but it would be an illusion that makes them feel better. In Singapore, people expect that their opinions will not be heard. The casino fiasco, which someone else has mentioned, is a prime example. In fact, the restriction of freedom of expression itself is a signal from the govt that it is not at all interested in hearing certain opinions.
I don't know if that's concrete enough for Huichieh. As I see it, people gain utility from feeling that their opinions are taken into consideration. Nothing concrete has to result, at least if you take "concrete" to mean "actual changes to the material state of my life". But if, for example, I want to give some feedback about my working conditions to my employer and he refuses to even remove his earplugs to listen to me, I would think that's a concrete enough reason for quitting the job. If my employer listened but nothing comes of the feedback, I would be unhappy, but less so than if he had refused to listen at all.
data, chrischoo, trabant_er, twasher: thank you for your thoughtful comments! I think we now have someting to go by that can potentially be used to further the discussion.
All: I will be occupied for most of Sunday and won't be able to rejoin until, perhaps, tonight. In the meantime, do continue.
KTM,
Yes, I dream of that exclusive prize although it's a private "internet chatter" when I mentioned it to you. Perhaps, I will never win it, but I know that I have not regretted trying for the rest of my life. If I don't get it in this lifetime, my plan B is to generate a lot of money as an entrepreneur or inspire others to create a generation of nobel prize winners.
Best regards.
yours,
BL
KTM,
I recall many years back an incident in the Pre-U seminar. Believe it or not, for many who loathed to go to this annual event, I was one of the few who enjoyed myself there, meeting interesting people and debating social and political issues in Singapore with them. Believe it or not, we debated to death on the subject of the Singapore dream, the 5Cs and our developments towards a materialistic society with no dreams and ideals. The theme for that year was “The Next Lap” , a book and roadmap for the development of Singapore in the next 25 years proposed by our senior minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong when he took office as the prime minster. After many keynote speeches and forum discussions, all of us (the students) coined a phrase that I felt reflects the cynicism for most of us at that age. It's "Because that's the way it is."
On the last day, a panel of speakers were talking about turning Singapore into a cultural and gracious society. As usual, being vocal, I stood up and posed the first question. The question is about changing the social stigma in differentiating between junior colleges and pre-u centres. The panellist replied me with a question, “Are university students looked upon more highly than polytechnic students?”. As I was ready to answer, a few friends of mine shouted out that it is obvious. The panellist continued to ask why and they replied with that famous phrase, “Because that’s the way it is.”
Of course, things have changed significantly in the last fifteen years but yet certain social stigma prevails. It occurs to me that "the gahmen don't listen to us" reasoning stems from the fact that most Singaporeans have come to accept things "because that's the way it is".
I just wanted to add to the casino example given above.
When it first came out that MOE was going to hire native speakers of English to teach in Singapore, the articles that appeared suggested that the Ministry was still thinking about it, implying that as Singaporeans, we could put in our two cents worth. (See http://www.channelnewsasia.com/s...212926/1/.html)
This of course resulted in a flurry of letters in the ST forum and elsewhere. It was assumed that the Ministry would read these and come to a decision.
However it soon transpired that the Ministry had put up recruitment ads for native speakers in The Guardian a whole month earlier. (See http://takchek.blogspot.com/2006...rs-by-moe.html)
Had it been a case where the Ministry says it's thinking of hiring native speakers, Singaporeans then give feedback but the Ministry makes a decision that goes against the popular opinion on the ground, I think many would still feel that they were listened to. It was just that for whatever reason, the Ministry believed that their action was for the better of the country.
However, in the case above, all the public debate and all the opinions sought by the media in Singapore were pointless. The decision was already made and carried out. Clearly, the Ministry was not planning to listen to anyone.
Are there any examples of the government listening to its people?
1 the fare hikes? Mah Bow Tan says no free lunch and yes, they can't control the oil price. Can I also ask boss for a raise for the same reason that I can't control the oil price and need more money?
2 education policies, like streaming. It took them over 10 years to make 'adjustments' to it. Did they listen to those cries from the parents? No, you must make a satirical movie like Jack Neo first.
3 casino/IR - someone else had elaborated
4 for those too young - developing our own SMEs. In the early 80's, there was much talk of a need to develop our own entrepreneurs. 20 years later, they want everyone to be entrepreneurs because not enough MNC jobs around.
I wouldn't say PAP don't listen. They just needed a very extended foreplay to get excited about other people's ideas.
I am over 50 so my memory fails me abit. I am sure there are many other examples.
Young people like you can't be suffering from memory loss already.
Write long essays which many don't agree with is a total waste of time. Very much like those government scholars that I used to work with.
Anonymous,
A counter example is the issue of protecting Chek Jawa, in Pulau Ubin. At first, the government wanted to develop the land into urban area, but the environmentalists lobbied to get them to give up the idea. In the end, the government relented and did not convert Chek Jawa into an urban area. A lot of people were surprised by that decision. There must be a catch to it, according to the cynics, and they believe that it's something to do with the unique biodiversity of the area that the government think that they can potentially exploit later. Of course, that's the only case I can remember.
Heavenly Sword,
If the deeper reason for saying 'Govt doesn't listen to me' is one that is based on concern for the country, AND the frustration stems from Not being able to improve their own country in certain ways, then I think it's not right to label them 'stupid' and 'immature'.
Perhaps you can explain why you think it's based on concern for the country. If they are truly concerned for the country, they will stay and try to improve the situation in my opinion. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the statement you referred to may be a little contentious and unfair. :-P However hor, as explained in my earlier comments, the KTM is trying to provoke a reaction what, so if he doesn't throw in some strong language how to provoke a reaction? You must know that the KTM is generally quite PC and circumspect in what he writes.
The KTM has never claimed that people who have lapses in their logic stupid and immature. Seriously never leh, so please dun generalize what I wrote. What I wrote is quite specific and targetted towards a very select audience (which I think does not include the HS).
The KTM is hoping that someone (who really understands what's going on with these folks) will come along to argue why the KTM is stupid and immature to claim that, "The Singaporeans who claim that they want to emigrate [only] because the Garmen doesn't listen to them are stupid and immature". The KTM might add that he refers to the people who quote "The Garmen Doesn't Listen to Me" as the ONLY reason for emigrating (original text has been amended accordingly).
Data,
Thanks for offering your views on this matter. The KTM is himself on the nay-sayers' camp for the casino and is not particularly pleased that the decision was taken on the contrary. That said, he accepts that a decision has been made and does not feel like he has not been listened to leh.
While it is true that the anti-casino lobby was loudest during the entire process, can we be entirely sure that the pro-casino camp was smaller? As you say, the political clumsiness of the ruling party is astounding. Are you surprised at the outcome of the casino debate (in terms of it's PR fallout)? In fact, it was probably a precursor of the humongous Gomez fiasco during the last GE. Do we want a Garmen who got more media/PR finesse or one that does its work quietly, albeit completely hopeless at managing its PR?
Let's look at the US for a moment. How do you think Bush managed to get tax cuts that basically benefitted the rich? Simple, you tell the blue-collar workers,"do you want to spend your own money or your Garmen to spend your money for you?" So Mr Joe pays $500 less in taxes a year and Mr Gates pays $500 million less. In the end, while Mr Joe could have paid $500 for a $500,000,500 healthcare plan (fictious, for illustration purposes only) for lowly-skilled workers, that's not happening 'cos Mr Gates saved his $500 million.
Data,
it's possible that by justifying emigration with "the gahmen does not listen to me", one in fact lacks the temperament for democratic compromise, or for real activism for one's cause in the first place.
I hope that this is not true. If this is true, then these fellas are truly pathetic 'cos what you're suggesting is that the problem is then with them and they are only blaming the Garmen for their own shortcomings.
chrischoo,
Everybody is free to pursue their own dreams. Life was what they make of it, and success is self-defined.
I am afraid I'm not folloeing your logic. You are suggesting that Singaporeans are not free to pursue that own dreams and define for themselves what success means because the Garmen is nagging too much? Honestly, your mother nag you to make up your bed in the morning, you got do or not? The KTM is one pai kia and doesn't make up his bed in the morning 'cos he can't see the logic. Tomorrow night will sleep again and make it messy what, fold blanket for what?? Garmen can nag lah, Singaporeans cannot follow their heart meh?
People are forced to go abroad to pursue their dreams because what the government thinks people should do doesn't reflect what people really want to do.
I actually don't agree with this statement. I think that people go abroad simply because of opportunities available abroad that are not available locally. We are simply too small to be all things to all people. One Taiwanese politician once commented that Singapore is small like "pi sai" right? We actually don't have to get too offended. He is quite right. :-(
trabant_er:
Thanks for your comments. Actually hor, the KTM was hoping to rouse some emotions in his article to see if he can learn something from the responses as he mentioned.
The KTM also has some suspicions that people may be using this dunno what "Garmen doesn't listen to me" thingy as an excuse for emigration, but then if this theory is right, it also supports the KTM's claim that it's only a lame excuse and is NOT THE TRUE REASON for emigration.
One question that the KTM is trying to sort out in his head is: to what extend is this "Garmen doesn't listen to me" a true concern when we think about the problem of emigration and brain drain, or is it quite irrelevant? If emigration is all about opportunities here versus there, then seriously, the KTM believes that there's really nothing much that the Garmen can do about it.
twasher,
Seems like you are suggesting that Singaporeans want an illusion (to live in the Matrix). :-P Suppose that the PAP got smarter and wayang'ed so well that people feel like it has opened it's earplugs, does it therefore mean that at least SOME Singaporeans would then change their minds about emigrating??
BL,
Er, apologises for not consulting you before citing you as an example. However hor, it was late and brain was on strike and you were the first (and unfortunately ONLY) example that came to mind when I was trying to come up with an example of a Singaporean who dared to dream.
Social stigma/prestige exists in all societies. Medicine and law will always be considered prestigious professions (and perhaps science as well, if you win the Nobel Prize).
It occurs to me that "the gahmen don't listen to us" reasoning stems from the fact that most Singaporeans have come to accept things "because that's the way it is".
Singapore was a small God-forsaken fishing village for dunno how and "that was the way it is". Then what happened? Singapore has grown economically from strength to strength for the last forty years, so that's "the way it has been". Will that continue to be "the way it will be".
I hope you're wrong. If you are right, then the fact is: our people cannot think and we have little hope, and we should all make arrangements to emigrate too.
Piper,
Thanks for sharing your example of the hiring of native English speakers to teach English. It never did occur to me that MOE was seeking the public opinion about hiring native English speakers. Wah sei, if the public expect to be consulted about such kachang puteh matters then jialat already. How many ang moh teachers do we think MOE will end up hiring? 50? 100? There are something like 28,000 teachers in the Education Service if I got my numbers right. Help me out, do you what made the public think that they were being consulted? Press coverage?
As you had highlighted, it seemed to me that the ST probably got wind of MOE's recruitment ads and decided to do a story. I think they were factually correct. The story probably broke between the advertisement and before any teachers were hired.... Do you think it would have helped public perception if the Forum Page DIDN'T PUBLISH any of those letters?
Anonymous,
This is the first and last time I will respond to anonymous persons. I'm not impressed that you cannot even be bothered to make up a peudonym, but on account of your age, I will give you some face.
Hui-Chieh, I respectfully request that all anonymous comments to all my blog entries henceforth be deleted.
1 the fare hikes? Mah Bow Tan says no free lunch and yes, they can't control the oil price. Can I also ask boss for a raise for the same reason that I can't control the oil price and need more money?
It turns out that you can ask your boss for more money 'cos you can't afford to take the bus to work anymore. This is called inflation. The KTM's major concern about the fare hikes is that it will feed into inflation. Actually, what's worse are profitteers who will use the fare hikes as an excuse to raise their prices even though it doesn't really affect them.
2 education policies, like streaming. It took them over 10 years to make 'adjustments' to it. Did they listen to those cries from the parents? No, you must make a satirical movie like Jack Neo first.
I'm actually in the pro-streaming camp (with some qualifiers but this matter is a topic for another day). :-P
3 casino/IR - someone else had elaborated
This one talked to death already.
4 for those too young - developing our own SMEs. In the early 80's, there was much talk of a need to develop our own entrepreneurs. 20 years later, they want everyone to be entrepreneurs because not enough MNC jobs around.
Perhaps the Garmen just didn't how to develop entrepreneurs (but din want to admit ). The KTM is not convinced even TODAY that the Garmen actually knows how to do it, even though it's supposedly trying to promote entrepreneurship. Yeah, yeah, you nag them to death about being entreprenuers and that's going to produce the next Sim Wong Hoo. You ask yourself a simple question: how is a bunch of bureaucrats who have been sitting in their ivory tower most of their lives supposed to know much about entrepreneurship to begin with? Someone once said it's like a virgin trying to teach people how to have sex. :-P
What the Garmen has done over the last 20 years however is to extensively develop our GLCs, which I understand has irritated some SMEs, who complain of unfair competition. The KTM has however not had any sympathies for them either.
It's really hard to say exactly when the Garmen has or has not listened to public opinion 'cos the decision making process is somewhat opaque. Even if there seems to be a U-turn in the Garmen's position, how can we tell if the Garmen listened or not?? :-P
For example, Mindef at first said no when violinist See Ian Ike asked for deferment to go learn how to play voilin. Then apparently, Mindef changed its mind after an appeal. Does it therefore mean that the Garmen "listened to the people"?
Also hor, the question is "listened to who"?? The KTM is quite sure that there will be some small-minded Singaporeans who will now be unhappy about Mindef's latest decision. If they now write to Forum Page to protest about how unfair it is for Mindef to let these so-called talented people defer NS while regular joes dun get such approval, how? What's Mindef supposed to do? Tell Ike, sorry cannot go now since people complained?
KTM,
"It's really hard to say exactly when the Garmen has or has not listened to public opinion 'cos the decision making process is somewhat opaque."
Exactly. Which is why I said before that before we even look at whether the govt listens, we should look at how much freedom people are given to speak out. This is the last time I'm going to state this really quite simple concept. You may think that the level of freedom of speech here is same as those other countries but like Huichieh Loy said, most people think that is not true.
"For example, Mindef at first said no when violinist See Ian Ike asked for deferment to go learn how to play voilin. Then apparently, Mindef changed its mind after an appeal."
At least get the factual info from the newspapers can? It's reported in the ST, which I believe you hold in high esteem. Mindef allowed the appeal because the course was changed from a 3-year one to a 2-year one, one that fits the criteria for a diploma. Poly students do poly before NS you know?
Help me out, do you what made the public think that they were being consulted? Press coverage?
Are you saying that the people's view should only be heard when the government explicitly says they are consulting the public? Otherwise we should all just mind our own business?
Here's what the report in CNA said (since the links apparently do not work). Remember this was reported on 10 June after a dialogue session with students:
He (Mr Tharman) said: "If need be, we can bring back native speakers of the English language to help us, especially in the first phase, help us to strengthen the teaching of the English language.
"We have many excellent Singaporean teachers in the English language. But we may need more numbers and this is something which we're looking into as well.
To me, this news was broken because Mr Tharman brought it up and not because the media got hold of the advertisements.
Do you think it would have helped public perception if the Forum Page DIDN'T PUBLISH any of those letters?
Public perception of what? Frankly, I think if the Forum page did not publish the letters, the public would think that Singaporeans did not really care about the matter. They wouldn't think it was because the government didn't want to listen.
Anyway, this is just a small incident and to you, clearly nothing important.
Also, are there really people whose ONLY reason for emigrating is that the government does not listen to them? Emigating is a major decision and I think it would involve a myriad of reasons, both frivolous and serious.
Perhaps there are those who will only state out loud the above reason but underneath have many other reasons, which may be difficult to articulate, for emigrating. Maybe these are the people you refer to as spoilt brats?
Just thought I would say that sporescores does have a point. If you can't talk, there really is nothing to listen to is there?
And I don't think anyone really wants a government that ONLY listens to its citizens and changes policies simply based on public opinion. I guess what we want is an impression that the government listens to us and that our opinions do matter to them.
If one reads the Forum pages, it is quite common to see that many Ministries never answer concerns directly and always talk at us instead of communicate with us.
Piper,
You are quite right to say that this issue of hiring ang moh teachers is not something that the KTM cares too much about. Aiyah, the important thing is hiring good teachers lah. Singaporean or ang moh really means very little.
Was simply curious to know why you said that MOE was consulting the public, 'cos the KTM never read it that way.
Given what you have said, it is perhaps timely for the KTM to clarify the "spoilt brats" comments. Sincerely, the KTM does not believe that ANYONE would emigrate ONLY because they feel that "they are not listened to by the Garmen". In this light, the KTM really wasn't being nasty to anybody since the people referred to as "stupid and immature" is expected to be an empty set.
The KTM's whole premise was that emigration happens for many other reasons, of which this "dun listen to me" reason cannot possibly be a primary or only reason (or so the conjecture goes).
Perhaps there are those who will only state out loud the above reason but underneath have many other reasons, which may be difficult to articulate, for emigrating.
Is that the case? Then the natural question is: why don't they try articulating the other reasons instead of throwing up such a lame excuse (which unfortunately is also poorly articulated)?
Here I am talking about emigration and there sporescores is launching into dunno what freedom of the press. Can the average joe write to the press and get published even if it was uncontrolled? Cannot what. Most Singaporeans cannot write for nuts. Given the availability of alternate views through the Internet, I really don't think that the availability of alternative viewpoints is the problem. To think that people will emigrate so as to have access to a so-called free press is even more ludicrous (unless we're talking about a fella who really wants to start a newspaper but who always gets denied a licence by MICA. How many of such people do we have?).
There are people who are most certainly unhappy with what's going on in Singapore. However, unless these folks learn to articulate their unhappiness in ways that are logical and comprehensible, they will not be heard 'cos no one understands them (or at least the Garmen is not likely to try too hard to understand them lah). As for those who have already articulated, but their views have not been accepted, the KTM offers his sympathies.
Aiyah... KTM, maybe you haven't been reading ST forum letters too carefully. If you have, you would have noticed that quite a number of the letters are not exactly well written. Perhaps what is worse is that many of them are about noteworthy issues like little kids being noisy at bookstores and something must be done about these things. I do not know whether 'most Singaporeans cannot write for nuts' but at least you've said before that your letters do not get published. In any case, the ST is pretty good at editing comments and letters. Besides average joes, journalists themselves can offer different views as well. This happens elsewhere more than it does in the SPH and Medicorp-monopolised media scene in Singapore.
Maybe not everyone thinks purely in terms of dollars and cents like you, and freedom of expression is important to some as well. Who are you to judge that this is a lame reason without even first finding out more about these people. Actually you might like to blog surf more to find out what some Singaporeans living overseas think.
Finally, I have to say that even though I think living in Singapore has a lot of pluses and our govt is one of the best in the world and has done many things right, I will not label people who migrate for reasons beyond bread and butter issues stupid. Emigration is a big decision and just because you do not share the desires as some people doesn't mean they are stupid, immature and irrational. Your sweeping statement only shows your narrow-mindedness and lack of respect for individual choice.
Honourable KTM,
Garmen can nag lah, Singaporeans cannot follow their heart meh?
Singaporeans can follow their heart - they are free to migrate because of the economic liberation the present government delivers to its citizens. I liken this to a situation where a very rich parent gives his teenage child a $1,000/mth allowance, but never listens to what he has to say nor offers him emotional or moral support. The child might be rich, and have the financial means to purchase whatever he wants, but he may not have any sense of attachment to home.
I think that people go abroad simply because of opportunities available abroad that are not available locally. We are simply too small to be all things to all people.
We disagree ideologically on this issue. This is what the government prefers us to believe. Singapore may be too small to be all things to all people, but it should provide the space for people to do what they want. Take for example the 2nd language policy, where there was a time when students who failed their mother tongue could not get their university degree. This resulted in those who had difficulty with 2nd language getting discriminated against because of a fundamentally unsound technicality. There is a distinct difference being "all things to all people" and "purposely being somethings to some people at the expense of others".
You also raised the issue about GLCs vs Private Enterprise and said that you didn't have much sympathy for that. While I agree that economies of scale naturally favours large companies, government backing of GLCs makes it difficult for private companies to compete on a level playing field because there is a tendency to award contracts to GLCs instead, regardless whether they are intrinsically better or not. The result of that was the demise of private enterprise - Sim Wong Hoo sought his fortune in Silicon Valley because he couldn't take off in Singapore.
Chris,
First of all, please dun anyhow call the KTM "Honourable". The KTM is no where close to being a judge and thus does not deserve to be addressed as such.
I'm afraid you have not attempted to explain your claim that "Singaporeans are not free to follow their hearts". Superficially, your parent/child analogy is interesting (though not particularly original since that's exactly the same analogy that the KTM used), but it's not clear how to draw the analogy to what's going on. We know that Singapore is a nanny-state. Are you saying that's a good thing, or are you like the KTM, who thinks that we should cut the apron springs? What is this "emotional or moral support" that you think is lacking? What kind of support do you need from the Garmen??
This question of building an attachment to the home is seriously non-trivial. Singapore only has 40 years of history as a country; China, which has an entire ancient civilization, history and culture behind it, is facing similar (or even more serious) brain drain problems and many of its best are also leaving its shores for foreign lands. Singapore is probably more successful at retaining our talent (with our scholarship bonds -- though I'm not suggesting that bonding our people is the way forward either).
The 2nd language policy has been reversed, so I don't know what you're griping about. You honestly don't believe that the Garmen doesn't make mistakes meh? If not, then mistake loh.
You must also understand that the 2nd language policy affected only a small number of people (generally the rich kantang types). If you want to talk about language policy, then the KTM would argue that the policy of choosing English as the medium of instruction and compulsory subject has discriminated against the poor who come from non-English speaking homes. In any case hor, how is the 2nd language policy "purposely being somethings to some people at the expense of others"?
government backing of GLCs makes it difficult for private companies to compete on a level playing field because there is a tendency to award contracts to GLCs instead
I don't know where you get your facts that there is a tendency to award to GLCs regardless whether they are intrinsically better or not. Which idiot will do that? In any case hor, GLCs got make sound cards meh? Let me remind you that the Singapore market got 4 million people, the US market got 300 million people. Please avoid making ludicrous claims out of your imagination if you have not spoken with Sim Wong Hoo.
In any case, even if you are right in saying that GLCs get awarded contracts regardless, it bothers the KTM not also. The KTM has said before, if GLCs make money, money goes to reserves; SMEs make money, money goes to some fat towkay (not the KTM). Which do you think is preferable to the KTM and to most Singaporean citizens (except the towkay)?
To keep us from digressing, let me just repeat the issues at hand for your reference:
(1) Is it true that some Singaporeans will emigrate for the sole reason that they feel that "the Garmen doesn't listen to them"; or it's always the case that they leave for some other reason(s), but somehow conveniently cite "the Garmen doesn't listen to them" as the excuse?
(2) If the latter is true, since this "the Garmen doesn't listen to them" excuse is so poorly articulated, why do they even bother instead of trying to articulate the other reasons.
(3) What exactly is the nature of this "the Garmen doesn't listen to me" feeling, since (i) most people are not politicians, and (ii) most people dun get their letters published on the Forum Page (or even care to write)?
(4) Will things really get better if the Garmen sets up a Matrix and gives people the illusion that they are being listened to (assuming that it's possible to set up such a thing)? People will be HAPPY living in a Matrix?
I do agree with sporescores. It is entirely possible that some Singaporeans will leave when they feel that the govt doesnt listen.
You know, the top-down approach. "I know best, so i will make a show of listening, but hey, i have already decided". The need for a masterplan for everything; "hey we cant let anything happen without our knowledge or approval". The fact that only acceptable and approved comments or feedback may be printed in the newspapers. The fact that publications are subtly hinted of tough restrictions and fines should they overstep the invisible markers and give unacceptable feedback/comments, regardless whether or not they really do reflect the feelings of the general populace.
And the thing is i feel that most singaporeans will only know what they are missing when they actually study or work abroad in a more liberal environment; what an enlightening of the mind, a positively invigorating experience that can prove to be! Indeed, enough to encourage some to emigrate.
Of course, this is only my point of view, and being that, i may very well be wrong, and KTM correct that no one emigrates due to the absence of a consultative govt.
KTM: People will not say they want a "wayang", but really a lot of the "listening" in liberal democracies is wayang. People would just prefer not to realise this. The catch is that once in a while their govts will do something that the people interpret as real listening, and that gives them hope. Also they have checks and balances in place to ensure that if any govt does not put on a good enough wayang, they will eventually be kicked out. Again this is something that only happens very indirectly, especially if you're just one vote amongst XX million, but even though economists always tell you it's more rational to stay at home on election day rather than waste your time queuing up to vote, even economists themselves still vote, because it makes them feel better.
KTM:
I don't see why people would NOT be happy living in a Matrix. In fact I believe most people already create a protective Matrix around themselves to fend off existential worries (part of this Matrix, for many, is religion). As long as you do not realise you are living in a Matrix, your happiness is unaffected. (This reminds me of Nozick's "experience machine" example, for those who know what I mean.)
That said, you could argue that maximising happiness is not the sole goal of life, and I have a lot of sympathy for that argument.
KTM,
I love reading your articles. There's a hint of joviality in your writing that is refreshing, kinda like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.
As an ex-Singporean who left in 1990, I find this article speaking to me from many different angles. What's a young child supposed to do when the parents want to leave for whatever the reason? I mean I love my parents for doing it, Being in Canada for more than half my life has given me a 180 degrees prespective on everything in love compared to growing up in Singapore. And yet, Singapore is never far from my thoughts. I'll admit that I've gotten the best of both worlds, but to your short dissertation of why people leave and Singapore feel they are disloyal, why isn't Singapore allowing them to be loyal to retain citizenship? There's no dual citizenship and I'd gladly call myself a Singaporean as technically I still do have that.
No, I cannot step on Singapore soil as I will be locked up for NS or forced to choose between Canadian / Singaporean citizenship. Which would you choose? The hoops you have to jump through in NS to me is a waste of time. Singapore is not a military state, though it wishes to be and parades every year round this time. I see some value for much of Singaporeans youth growing up in such a protectionism environment emphasizing on brain power, that NS would do some good. I'm not a weak person in need of physical training, I'm not a person who needs to know how to fight, I know that all by myself because here I'm free to pursue whatever education on whatever topics and I've been able to do that HERE. I don't need to waste 2 years serving a country that wants me to renounce my Canadian citizenship.
After I've rambled on... I just want to say keep writing. KTM is about just being Singapore honest, true to what you believe. And most of that honesty gets spoken out when you're enjoying some KT!
By the looks of it, I will be busy for some time (family, work, i.e., life beckons). But I am still reading the discussion with interest. Just a couple of brief comments. First, re: sporescores's latest.
It's simply this: before we even talk about whether the govt listens, we should look at whether people are allowed to speak freely in the first place. You already said that there is less freedom of speech here. So I don't see what further clarifications I need to make...
Exactly. Which is why I said before that before we even look at whether the govt listens, we should look at how much freedom people are given to speak out. This is the last time I'm going to state this really quite simple concept. You may think that the level of freedom of speech here is same as those other countries but like Huichieh Loy said, most people think that is not true.
Actually, the connection between being able to "speak out" and "being listened to" is not obvious--assuming that the former is in the area of "freedom of expression", and the latter is more in the area of "having a part in shaping policy". There is no intrinsic connection between the two. In fact, there had been democracies in which all of the citizens have a direct share in shaping policy. As one writer puts it, the citizens had a share "in deliberating, in the public square, over war and peace; in forming alliances with foreign governments; in voting laws, in pronouncing judgments; in examining the accounts, the acts, the stewardship of the magistrates; in calling them to appear in front of the assembled people, in accusing, condemning or absolving them." But these were also societies in which "freedom of expression" is not a value at all. On the other hand, it is also possible for a society to enjoy a high degree of freedom of expression--people can generally say whatever they want--but the people at large have no share in shaping policy.
Looking at the more substantial responses (from lzydata's onwards) and from my own knowledge, I would say that the "gahmen does not listen to me" complaint often ends up conflating two (or even three) distinct issues.
(1) That there is not enough freedom of expression in Singapore. And so we talk about there being things we can't say. And perhaps more generally, things we can't do.
(2) That citizens don't feel as if they have any share in shaping policy. This again hides two distinct possibilities as well. (2a) It could mean something in the area of "citizens don't feel as if the policies implemented by the governing classes address their concerns, are in their good, etc., and their complaints have been to nought, though they generally uninterested in positively shaping policy" (unhappiness of this sort is apparently growing in the EU). (2b) It could also mean something in the area of "citizens don't feel as if they have a share in the positive shaping of policy".
But of course it is often assumed that one of the ways to shape policy is through public debate. More realistically--and even in the US--policy is generally shaped not by "public debate" as proponents of the "deliberative democracy" model might wish it to be, but by the competition and compromise between the leaders and agents of various special interests. That is, if there is a public debate, it is really one between these 'opinion leaders' in the context of their competition for support (and hence votes) from the public. Sometimes, the public is not really in the loop at all, or only in the loop partially: policy is made by the elected representatives after debate--and compromise--among themselves; or when the agents of special interest go straight to persuade the elected representatives themselves (K Street) rather the public per se. But one need not be too cynical about the entire process. Even a largely 'voiceless' public will feel that they have a voice because what each section wants is given voice--and probably in a manner that is felt to be superior by the constituents themselves--by their opinion leaders.
The distinction between (1), (2a) and (2b) is important. Not everyone who wants to be able to do or say whatever they want to do or say so that they can influence policy. Their concerns may be much more limited. Or they just want to pursue happiness as they understand happiness. Or they just want to be provocative, or to find some avenue of release. It's hard to imagine the so called 'seditious' bloggers' antics as so many attempts to "influence policy" in any grand sense. And when people are unhappy they they should be charged, hauled before the policy, etc., they are defending these people's right to say whatever they want--not their 'right' to influence policy per se.
On the other hand, it is also possible for one to want to say or do certain things so as to be able to influence policy in some way--but that takes us to (2a) and (2b). And my own sense is that the true underlying point of the complaint that "the gahmen does not listen to me" lies more in this area more than anything else, even though it is often a conflation of (2a) and (2b).
More can be said but I need to attend to other matters. Just one more thing. It is not really fruitful to harp on the fact that there is less freedom of expression in Singapore than in the US--granting the truth of the claim--not unless we know exactly what that difference consist in in concrete terms and why that difference is somehow of significance to the issue at hand. In addition, why is the US somehow the gold standard? The US is, in fact, an outlier among the major liberal democracies when it comes to the matter of freedom of expression. In this regard, it is much more 'libertarian' than the other liberal democracies. In any case, "it is very difficult to speak of free speech in universalist terms when the concept is examined from a framework of comparative law that takes cultural difference into full account" (editorial description to Ronald J., Jr. Krotoszynski, The First Amendment in Cross-Cultural Perspective). But more importantly, the entire comparison is either of dubious or at best indirect relevance. The issue is about those who left or are wont to leave Singapore because "the gahmen--of Singapore--does not listen to them". There is nothing wrong with 'universalistic' terms and ideals, but we need to relate them to the specific case of Singapore--and in particular, to the specific complaint of those who say that the gahmen does not listen to them.
Hello from Adelaide,
I did not leave because the government didn't listen to me. I left because I was tired of listening to them. I am not very interested in any kind of wayang, world-class production or otherwise.
Perhaps let me point all to a better article (in my opinion) on emigration written by a fellow blogger, waterchild: http://waterchild.blogdrive.com/...archive/
17.html and http://waterchild.blogdrive.com/...archive/
19.html. I chanced upon his blog and found it more enlightening.
As KTM had never migrated or plan to migrate(?), it is very presumptious to make such statements about fellow Singaporeans who had.
Perhaps I am stupid and immature but friend, only time will tell who's the fool.
Enjoy reading
KTM,
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
We know that Singapore is a nanny-state. Are you saying that's a good thing, or are you like the KTM, who thinks that we should cut the apron springs? What is this "emotional or moral support" that you think is lacking? What kind of support do you need from the Garmen??
I believe that the nanny state is an outdated concept - it's something that was useful in the past but is increasingly irrelevant because of the rapidly improving educational qualifications of Singaporeans. The analogy about emotional and moral support is not about asking the government for funding support, but about creating a level environment where private enterprise can blossom. GLCs are useful in some aspects, such as in the case of public goods like education and transport infrastructure where private enterprises are unlikely to take root. GLCs become oppressive and against the nature of private enterprise when they creep into providing goods and services that are efficiently provided by private companies - such as say, supermarkets and even coffins. There is the saying that NTUC takes care of Singaporeans from cradle to grave. It is a disturbing quote, at least to me.
This question of building an attachment to the home is seriously non-trivial. Singapore only has 40 years of history as a country;
Perhaps KTM hasn't realized that the number of new independent nations has increased dramatically in the past few decades. Take for example India and Pakistan, two nations that are just a few years older than Singapore. Their people are highly nationalistic and have a strong sense of attachment to their country, despite having to tackle problems like corruption and religious tension. The argument that countries need 100s of years to feel some kind of attachment is flawed - it's not as if either of us is expected to live more than 80-90 years anyway. Singaporeans were extremely nationalistic in the heady days of independence too. The problem today is that while Singapore is fortunate enough to be significantly smaller, and hence much easier to manage, the number of people leaving for "greener pastures" is disconcerting.
It's also myopic to paint "quitters" with a broad brush and even consider that they leave purely because "the government doesn't listen to them". There are other reasons, such as flawed policy formulation in the case of the rich kantangs running away. I'm also surprised that you casually dismiss the rich English-educated people who had to pursue their education somewhere else, since that implicitly implies that wealth and talent was leaving, and it happened for a long time.
Regarding private enterprise, because a GLC dominates the local market doesn't mean it is good for the country as a whole because of the opportunity cost of forgone private enterprise. Tell me how many companies in the Global Fortune 500 are run by governments.
OK to cover some of your 4 points:
(1) Is it true that some Singaporeans will emigrate for the sole reason that they feel that "the Garmen doesn't listen to them"; or it's always the case that they leave for some other reason(s), but somehow conveniently cite "the Garmen doesn't listen to them" as the excuse?
Singaporeans probably migrate for several reasons. The perception of an unlistening government is one. The lack of opportunities could be another. It's probably rare that Singaporeans migrate solely because they need to feel "more free" or that "the government should listen to them", but it could be what breaks the camel's back. I'll skip (2) since the I don't agree with your conclusion from (1).
(3) What exactly is the nature of this "the Garmen doesn't listen to me" feeling, since (i) most people are not politicians, and (ii) most people dun get their letters published on the Forum Page (or even care to write)?
The forum page is just one facet of this feeling, real or perceived. Note that there are many other avenues (not related to population size) that people elsewhere have to voice their opinions - writting letters to their elected representatives, forming meaningful lobby groups, peaceful protests, strikes, etc. Some of these are not actually desirable, but the fact that there are so few avenues here creates the impression that people are not being listened to.
(4) Will things really get better if the Garmen sets up a Matrix and gives people the illusion that they are being listened to?
KTM, this is a very defeatist attitude. Listening is not a matter of creating a Matrix. It's about creating avenues that give typical citizens the chance to participate in formulating policies. We are complaining now because we can see that the government is trying to create a Matrix today.
On second thought, I had better clarify this.
Yes, Howard and Kim have wayangs every other day too.
When I made the decision, I did not use a checklist to tally up the respective ticks or crosses in order to make that fateful decision.
I only used one yardstick - size of country. Australia is big enough to give me some peace and quiet if I choose so.
Of course, you can also carry some placards and walk around the Parliament House to have your say.
Bee Hoon Hag,
It is entirely possible that some Singaporeans will leave when they feel that the govt doesnt listen.
Enlighten me: why do you think that it's possible? Is this from first-hand experience? Or did you hear this from someone who is actually emigrating?
And the thing is i feel that most singaporeans will only know what they are missing when they actually study or work abroad in a more liberal environment; what an enlightening of the mind, a positively invigorating experience that can prove to be! Indeed, enough to encourage some to emigrate.
Are you saying this from personal experience (i.e. you've studied or worked outside Singapore) or is this what you imagine the outside work to be?
The KTM is really not trying to be difficult. He's really trying to understand how people think. 
twasher,
Thanks for sharing your views so boldly and risking flak from those who will get upset at you for suggesting that people will be happy living in a Matrix.
The KTM will not argue that maximising happiness is not the sole goal of life. The KTM is just of the opinion that we should let people choose -- and if they want to lead their lives by maximizing their happiness, so be it.
In the context of the Matrix, the KTM's point of view is very simple: let people choose the pill they want. If they want to choose the red pill, so be it; if they want the blue pill, so be it. Judgement is wholy unnecessary. What seems to be the problem is that there are bigots on both camps who each think that their camp is better.
Vince Chan,
Thanks for your kind words. The KTM also applauds your courage for posting what you wrote and for putting a face to the words. You do realize that there will be some who will take offense at what you said. :-P
This article is not really about loyalty. In fact, it is trying to argue that emigration is NOT ABOUT loyalty and also that emigration is a much more complex issue that dunno what "Garmen doesn't listen to me".
Since you are wondering why you are not allowed to retain Singapore citizenship, perhaps the KTM can try to kay poh and offer an explanation. There is this principle called, "with rights come responsibility".
Singapore citizenship comes with certain benefits (apparently). Supposedly you will get subsidies for education, healthcare, HDB concessionary loans, Singapore passport (very useful actually), and dunno what else lah. The catch is that the male citizens are required to serve national service. Since you are not prepared to do NS, there is no good reason for you to keep your Singapore citizenship. While your decision is not one that the KTM would pick ('cos he's a puny weakling who actually needs NS to toughen him up), it is actually a perfectly rational one. :-P
That said, I still haven't answered your question about why Singapore doesn't allow dual citizenship. Actually hor, the KTM also doesn't know lah. Does it seem likely to you that the KTM is actually Wong Kan Seng in disguise? No right?
Nevertheless, the KTM can venture a guess. It has everything to do with a perception that you cannot be loyal to two countries at the same time. Suppose suay suay Canada decides to invade Singapore (like in your dreams), which side would you take? Also, why does one need to hold dual citizenship in the first place? Why can't people just pick one side and stick with it? For example, suppose you had two beautiful girlfriends --- of course, you probably wouldn't mind marrying them both. :-P But what do you think they will say? This is a lousy analogy, but I think the logic works.
Dunno what the state of the law is today, but if the law doesn't allow you to renounce your Singapore citizenship then perhaps it should be changed. Come back and visit Singapore as a Canadian citizen and contribute some tourist dollars to our economy lah. Like you can get good laksa and CKT in Canada hor! :-P
a simpler life,
Thanks for sharing and for highlighting waterchild's articles.
I think you have not read my article quite in the right spirit to begin with, so it might perhaps be appropriate for me to summarize it for your benefit. The following is the crux of the KTM's message:
Emigration really isn't a question of loyalty and it shouldn't shouldn't be framed as one. The Garmen can afford to be gracious to those who leave.
Then, this part about "The Singaporeans who claim that they want to emigrate [only] because the Garmen doesn't listen to them are stupid and immature" is really quite extraneous. The KTM was actually reacting to the people who sit around and talk from their imagination. The KTM's theory is that "Garmen doesn't listen to me" cannot possibly be a major reason for emigration.
As you also mentioned, you migrated 'cos "Australia is big enough to give me some peace and quiet if (you) choose so". Fair enough, the KTM also finds Singapore somewhat claustrophobic at times.
The point remains: you didn't migrate so that you "can also carry some placards and walk around the Parliament House" what. What irritates the KTM quite a bit are those Singaporeans who sit around on their butts in Singapore, think that they are damn smart and talk from their imagination without using their brains. You don't belong to this category and so you really don't have to take offense at the KTM's nonsense.
The KTM had also considered retiring down under and spending his twilight days tending to sheep, but that's only a thought and he's not sure he really likes sheep. You got a sheep farm? KTM can come and visit or not?
Chris Choo,
There is the saying that NTUC takes care of Singaporeans from cradle to grave. It is a disturbing quote, at least to me.
Why is it disturbing? As long as we get cheaper or better service, why should Singaporeans care whether NTUC is providing or SME is providing? In any case hor, what makes you think that it's the responsibility of the Garmen to help the SMEs?
Honestly, I'm tired of debating with you about this topic. Your economics is not very sound and you have no idea about what you're talking about. In any case, neither is the KTM an expert on this topic. Go and talk to BL or Cobalt Paladin, who are the masters on this topic yeah?
Unless you have stayed abroad for an extended period before and/or you are contemplating emigration or have emigrated, it seems to the KTM that you are talking from your imagination.
We are complaining now because we can see that the government is trying to create a Matrix today.
If only the Garmen were any good at creating a Matrix, you wouldn't be complaining.
KTM,
Why would you want to visit a sheep farm?! You are living in one big sheep farm of a country.... there are more sheep in Singapore than in NZ, I think.
Frankly, I can't really see your drift. You seem to imply those who left for economic reasons are better than those who complain and never leave?? (those that sit on their butts and imagine ...) Or you are pissed off at those who left but used "government don't listen' as their reason?
I thought having fair-weather citizens is worse. The moment there is a recession, they will emigrate in droves. This is a reason why I think Singapore's policy on PRs should be fine-tuned. 2 out of 3 PRC nationals I knew in Singapore are just waiting to get out, using Singapore as a springboard to greener pastures.
For those complaining but not leaving, well, be thankful lah. Otherwise, you will really need to kowtow to every ex-Singaporean for contributing their tourist dollars eating your char keow teow.
For those who left citing 'government don't listen' as reason, perhaps they may have been idealistic. I won't brand them spoil brats. Emigration is not a masak-masak decision. Logically, we should also see them returning in droves once reality sinks in that Singapore is as good as any world-class democracy.
Then, Singapore really has nothing to worry, what? I really don't see what's the point of rigging this dead horse every year around National Day.
As for my types, sorry lah. Singapore can't do much except go for massive reclamation projects southwards. Might meet us down under one day.
I am glad that you had fleeting moments of contemplating retiring in Australia. Your type is ok, hah? But I think they have very stringent conditions for old age migration.
Cheers
a simpler life,
You seem to imply those who left for economic reasons are better than those who complain and never leave?? (those that sit on their butts and imagine ...) Or you are pissed off at those who left but used "government don't listen' as their reason?
Actually neither. I think it's fine for Singaporeans to leave for economic reasons, education reasons, whatever reasons lah. Just seemed to the KTM that there is this bunch of disgruntled good-for-nothings who continue to stay in Singapore and whine, and say dunno what that Singaporeans leave because "Garmen dun listen". Am I making any sense?
I thought having fair-weather citizens is worse.
The PRC PRs are not citizens. We call them PRs for a reason right? Neither is the KTM going to judge them. Whoever thinks that these fellas came to Singapore because of a love for our flag and because we are a land of the free and liberty must be smoking some weed.
It is precisely because many of our own Singaporeans have left for better opportunities abroad that we suay suay need these PRs to run our economic machinery. So, we live with them, until they leave for some other greener pastures loh. No love gained, no love lost what. No need to get upset at them either.
For those complaining but not leaving, well, be thankful lah. Otherwise, you will really need to kowtow to every ex-Singaporean for contributing their tourist dollars eating your char keow teow.
Honestly, I'd rather kowtow to you than to have to feed those good-for-nothing whiners, but that's just me lah.
Logically, we should also see them returning in droves once reality sinks in that Singapore is as good as any world-class democracy.
Precisely lah. Even if Singapore becomes a liberal democracy where any jackass can publish anything they want in the press, it means that Singaporeans will return in droves, or that people won't emigrate meh?
I really don't see what's the point of rigging this dead horse every year around National Day.
I agree with you, which is precisely why I wrote this article. Aiyah, our politicians are not very creative lah and so have to resort to flogging the same horse every year to earn their keep. Eh, but tell me: is the story any different down under? Seems to the KTM that politics is the same everywhere; politics in Singapore is a little bit lau pok, but nevermind lah, I think most of us have learnt to live and let live (though some will still whine about it).:-P
a simpler life,
One additional point to add: there is something that I've come to realize which the Garmen does not seem to see. While people like you and Vince Chan have left for greener pastures, you guys still care enough to read about what's happening in Singapore and to leave your two cents. Perhaps that's loyalty? :-P
The world has changed. We too have to change and adjust the way that we view issues of loyalty and how we perceive the world.
It really doesn't matter if Singaporeans are sheep, as long as they are happily chew their cud. It also doesn't matter if some decide to be eagles and not sheep and instead decide to spread their wings and try to find their fortunes and happiness in foreign lands. :-P
KTM,
I think hor, not good if all Singaporeans are sheep and happily chewing their cud.
In any society, we need a combination of sheep and eagles. Just like in any village, some to hunt while others to farm.
The global environment is more competitive now. Sometime ago, a Chinese businessman told me that we should learn to be more like a wolf in a sheepskin instead! Otherwise, a shepherd will come along and lead us to Holland.
Singapore should learn to accept diversity sincerely and gracefully.
In Australia, many are of migrant stock. They have loyalties to both their country of birth and their adopted homeland. Honestly, I don't buy this crap about serving NS to show loyalty. (your point about 2 girlfriends? I read somewhere that lately, Singaporean men like to keep mistresses too).
I wonder (I don't know, being a female, have not served NS)if a Singaporean man would really charge up and attack a malaysian town if all his wife's relatives happen to live there?
I don't care about wayangs in Australia. But, the local council does have a lot more to contend with. For example, a plan to build a shopping mall on a piece of land where a retirement village is presently located has been halted by 3 residents who put up a complaint. The developers had to redo their plans and integrate the retirement village in their new plan for submission. It was finally approved after 2 years. Singaporeans don't like this kind of inefficiency. They prefer to dump their old folks in Batam and Bintan.
Actually, Australia have many offshore islands where they can dump those old folks too. Who knows, when you retire here, you might be allocated on one of them :0
Hi KTM,
Unless you have stayed abroad for an extended period before and/or you are contemplating emigration or have emigrated, it seems to the KTM that you are talking from your imagination.
You may refer to my profile on my site to determine whether I have stayed abroad for any extensive amount of time or am contemplating emigration or both. I disagree that I am imagining things. On a side note, there are some insightful comments in today's issue of the Financial Times talking about entreprenuership. Whether you agree with them is up to you.
I regret that this debate has degenerated into a personal attack. I appreciate your willingness to engage me until this point but suppose it is pointless to proceed further. I'm still happy that I've been able to hear your side of things because, rightly or wrongly, we're approaching these issues from opposite ends altogether.
Correction, I meant today's issue of The Business Times. Ah well, Happy National Day!
Huichieh Loy, I see you've written quite a fair bit in response to my comment. Let me focus your thoughts. I am talking about people who believe the govt does not listen because it suppresses the expression and discussion of ideas in the first place. You already recognise the value this has in terms of indirect pressure on the democratic-legislative process. This is how "speaking out" and "being listened to" are related. Simple, no?
And contrary to what you say about how "The US is, in fact, an outlier among the major liberal democracies when it comes to the matter of freedom of expression.", if you have experienced both Europe and USA, you will realise that many European govts are even more liberal when it comes to freedom of expression in mass media.
sporescores
If you read the fair bit that I wrote in response to your comment, you should be able to see that I am talking about the connection between "freedom of expression" and "having a part in shaping policy"--on the assumption that these are the two points that are involved in "speaking out" and "being listened to". Now of course if what you meant by the former is really "speaking out so as to be listened to, i.e., so as to influence policy", then the connection between the two is not only "simple", it is trivial. But I was under the impression that you were attempting to make a non-trivial point, but perhaps I read wrong, if so, my apologies.
But if we are talking about the connection between freedom of expression and having a part in shaping policy--not that you are necessarily talking about that--then the connection is not a straightforward one, even as they can also come together. The two need not be mutually implying at all.
The larger point is this: there may well be two distinct complaints against the government rolled into one--(a) I am not allowed to speak as I please (whether or not I care about influencing policy); and (b) I don't have a share in the shaping of policy (whether or not I care about freedom of expression). Both are potentially legitimate complaints, but they are nonetheless analytically distinct and imply different solutions. The short version: the solution to (a) is more liberalism while the solution to (b) is more democracy. Why is it important to be clear about the distinction? Simply because we want to be clear about just what is it that we are complaining about and thus just what is it that we are demanding.
Focusing our thoughts, shall we say.
Re: the US vs. EU thing. My point is only that freedom of expression is protected differently in the various liberal democracies. More importantly, it turns out that they are balanced against other values differently too. (The Krotoszynski book.) But as I said, the comparison with the US is "either of dubious or at best indirect relevance." Presumably your point is not the rather banal point that Singapore is not like the US or EU or whatever, that we do things differently; but the more substantial point that our way of doing things is somehow not good--whatever the practices are in the US, EU, Australia.
From Lzydata's response onwards, I see a string of well articulated attempts to give substance to the complaint that "the gahmen does not listen to me". Much of it very good stuff and definitely advanced our understanding of the issues. (I am working on a longer response to them.) But yours is not among them. I am still waiting to see you join that discussion.
Huichieh Loy, another rather verbose comment from you on the non-issue of what the difference is between not listening and not allowing someone to speak.
Looks like I have to take the trouble of explaining to you further. So here goes:
If I let you speak, I may or may not listen to you. But if I do not even let you speak, can the possibility of me listening to you even exist?
So if you think that the relatively low level of free speech here can coexist with a high level of listening, something is either wrong with your concept of the relationship between listening and speaking, or you are caught up in your own words and hair-splitting, or both. I am looking forward to your explanation of how you think that the govt can suppress free speech and yet at the same time listen to what everyone has to say, but based on what you have written so far, I'm afraid you are either incapable of making such an explanation, or more interested in repeating your question asking for content without even getting a clear understanding of this simple concept first, or both.
So you really are talking about the trivial connection between "speaking" and "listening". Then of course if I don't let you speak, then I can't be doing any listening either. If this is what you meant, then surely you are right. But it also means that I am not talking about the same thing as you...
To be clear, my point is not that a "relatively low level of free speech" can "coexist with a high level of listening" but that it is perfectly compatible with a high level of actual participation in the actual reins of power. (This is a particular instance of a more general point that was nicely phrased by Benjamin Constant; look for the two para. beginning "First ask yourselves, Gentlemen...")
Agreement or disagreement comes only after communication - speaking and listening. While the concept of communication being two-way is simple (or what you equate as therefore trivial), it is nevertheless important. People are not so unreasonable as to expect the govt to do everything they say. They just want the govt to at the very least listen to what they have to say.
I'm afraid you have not explained how is a relatively low level of free speech "perfectly compatible with a high level of actual participation in the actual reins of power"?
Agreement or disagreement comes only after communication - speaking and listening. While the concept of communication being two-way is simple (or what you equate as therefore trivial), it is nevertheless important. People are not so unreasonable as to expect the govt to do everything they say. They just want the govt to at the very least listen to what they have to say.
"Trivial" in the sense of tautologous, not "unimportant". But good, I think this is getting somewhere. The last sentence is about the most helpful thing you've said so far (though I think it can be further expanded).
I am working on a longer response to the issues raised, but because of other commitments, it will take a few days. Still, see the thought experiment at the end of the comment.
* * * * *
I'm afraid you have not explained how is a relatively low level of free speech "perfectly compatible with a high level of actual participation in the actual reins of power"?
Well, all I can say at this point is that there were historical examples. Quoting Constant (see especially the second paragraph, especially the second half of that paragraph):
First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a French-man, and a citizen of the United States of America understand today by the word 'liberty'. For each of them it is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practice it, to dispose of property, and even to abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. It is everyone's right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims. Finally it is everyone's right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed. Now compare this liberty with that of the ancients.
The latter consisted in exercising collectively, but directly, several parts of the complete sovereignty; in deliberating, in the public square, over war and peace; in forming alliances with foreign governments; in voting laws, in pronouncing judgments; in examining the accounts, the acts, the stewardship of the magistrates; in calling them to appear in front of the assembled people, in accusing, condemning or absolving them. But if this was what the ancients called liberty, they admitted as compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community. You find among them almost none of the enjoyments which we have just seen form part of the liberty of the moderns. All private actions were submitted to a severe surveillance. No importance was given to individual independence, neither in relation to opinions, nor to labor, nor, above all, to religion. The right to choose one's own religious affiliation, a right which we regard as one of the most precious, would have seemed to the ancients a crime and a sacrilege. In the domains which seem to us the most useful, the authority of the social body interposed itself and obstructed the will of individuals. Among the Spartans, Therpandrus could not add a string to his lyre without causing offense to the ephors. In the most domestic of relations the public authority again intervened. The young Lacedaemonian could not visit his new bride freely. In Rome, the censors cast a searching eye over family life. The laws regulated customs, and as customs touch on everything, there was hardly anything that the laws did not regulate.
(There are more modern examples as well...but the basic idea is this: it is entirely possible for an unrestrained democracy to impose upon itself--and any dissenting minorities--strict controls over what can be expressed. A liberal democracy is not just a democracy, it is also committed to a regime of rights--among which would be the right to freedom of expression no matter how odious the expression may be to the powerful majority. The two can compliment each other, but they can also fall apart.)
* * * * *
Thought experiment:
Suppose the government sets up a bunch of booths (let's call them "The Gahmen Listens Booths") where any citizen can enter and say anything that he (or she) wants--he can speak up to his hearts contents and not fear any repercussions whatsoever, while at the same time, there will be a government official stationed there whose assigned duty is to literally listen to everything that is said. In fact, not only must he listen, the speaker is even allowed to test the listener to make sure that he comprehends. It is also stated in advance that no government policies will be affected on account of whatever that goes on in the booths.
Is there still a legitimate complaint that "the gahmen does not listen to me"? If so, why? Is this even a genuine case of freedom of expression? If not, why?
a simpler life,
Of course I cannot but agree with you that it wouldn't be good if Singaporeans were all sheep, but I wouldn't worry too much about that. In the natural order of things, some Indian chiefs will arise and try to play shepherd. That's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be. And honestly, the KTM cannot be agree that the flip-side of an efficient system with near-absolute control is that one bad head shepherd can lead the country to Holland.
However, given our current rather critical economic circumstances (though the Garmen probably wouldn't admit so, and even if they said so, people also wouldn't believe them 'cos cry wolf too many times already), the greater risk is probably that the current shepherds may make a wrong move, and we go under like Atlantis. :-(
At the end of the day, it is not that the average American really cares much about politics either. It's just that people are bigger and hence there are most people who make more noise. The structure of society is ultimately dictated by the failings of human nature (and some random chance). :-P
The KTM never said anything about serving NS to show loyalty leh. Serving NS is just an obligation of citizenship in Singapore (for the men). Loyalty is shown when we have to go to war.
I wonder (I don't know, being a female, have not served NS) if a Singaporean man would really charge up and attack a malaysian town if all his wife's relatives happen to live there?
If there is war between Singapore and Malaysia, the war will not be fought in the Malaysian jungles. The war will be fought in the hearts and minds of the Singaporeans. The Garmen would have to convince the KTM (and others like him) that there is a need to go to war. If the Garmen cannot win this war of hearts, then the war will never make it out to the Malaysian jungle; but if indeed the people of Singapore are convinced that we need to fight, it's a done deal.
The KTM cannot speak for others, but if the KTM is called up for active duty. He will go charge and take the malaysian town if that's his duty. Strangely enough, it turns out that his wife's relatives are in Malaysia.
Singaporean men do not go to war for a flag, not for dunno what democracy, and most definitely not for PAP. If the Singaporean men go to war, they go to war to protect their friends and their families, our cherished way of life and our buddies who will be fighting by our side.
War with a neighbouring country should never be started because of domestic politics and political parties on any side should not cease this as an excuse for politicking. In war, people will die. We have to remember that. However, the only way to avoid a war is to be prepared for one.
On your point about shipping the old folks to Batam, it turns out that the KTM has thought about it quite seriously too. The KTM is of the view that people are reacting too violently to the idea without first understanding economic circumstances.
While it is true that Australia has a lot of offshore islands, it is also true (as you highlighted) that Australia has plenty of land, so it doesn't have to resort to shipping the old folks to offshore islands. I'm not saying that Singapore will necessarily do so either, but who knows. The KTM is a proponent of sustainable and economically sound development (i.e., balanced budgets and all that good stuff that go with it).
While Australia is doing relatively well now, it is not immune to the problems of globalization and only time will tell if Australia will run of out money to take care of its old folks. I hope that you have taken care of your own retirement planning. Of course, the saving grace for Australia is that it's full of uranium, so when the world's supply of oil starts to run out, it will still do fine for a couple of decades to come. You are perhaps wise indeed to migrate down under. :-P
its only logical to move out of the hotel when you have overstayed your welcome.
Huichieh Loy, I'm afraid you are going off on a tangent from a simple concept again. Please quote real life examples in the Singapore context of how a relatively low level of free speech can be "perfectly compatible with a high level of actual participation in the actual reins of power". This will be much more relevant to the issue at hand compared with what you've raised.
It's a possibility--and since not actual in Singapore, there won't be any "real life examples"--in Singapore. But given that this sort of things was actual in the past, it can't get more concrete than that (the quote from Constant). We can, however, imagine how it might be concretely instantiated in Singapore. Suppose Singapore decides things by regular referendums (a "plebiscitarian dictatorship" as Lzydata put it)--and granting that these are fair referendums. Now it is perfectly conceivable for a super majority to vote to curtail all anti-religious expression. In such an event, the people exercied sovereignty and will continue to do so but it has also imposed upon itself a restriction upon freedom of expression. This would be a concrete--though counterfactual--example.
My point is this: we can distinguish two distinct things that we are after in making the complaint that "the gahmen does not listen" or alternatively, we "have no voice"--we want to be able to speak up and say whatever we want, and we want to have some influence over the formulation of policy. They don't imply each other. But we do want both.
Think of it this way: (a) Do you agree that the value of freedom of expression is more than its ability to influence policy? Could it not also be because, where possible, we would simply like to be able to do or say what we please? On the other hand, (b) do you also agree that we find it valuable for ordinary citizens to have some sort of a say in policy making, apart from any implications for freedom of expression?
If your answers to (a) and (b) are both "yes", then we are not disagreeing at all. Both civil and political liberty are important; the only thing is how they might be balanced if and when they come into conflict.
This is relevant in that it is part of my own attempt to answer the question I posed--my (partial) contribution to the attempt to give substance to the complaint that the gahmen does not listen to me.
ADDITION: It is possible to sort through all of the proposed answers so far using the two categories above.
0 voice in 4.5 millions or 1 voice in 225 millions?
I'm sure the difference is not significant by any means. Except in the heart of a human being.
It may be irrational, but then again no human being is completely rational.
Chris,
You may refer to my profile on my site to determine whether I have stayed abroad for any extensive amount of time or am contemplating emigration or both.
It seems that you've spent a semester in CMU. The KTM is not a very good judge of time, but he wouldn't call that extensive. :-P Also, life a student is not quite real. You paid taxes? As a bonded scholar, the KTM hopes you are not contemplating breaking bond and emigrating. Conclusion: the KTM believes you need to do more homework before you make too many more authoritative statements about life abroad and/or emigration.
That said, you have demonstrated a great deal of self-control and graciousness and put the KTM to shame. The KTM has no wish to be obnoxious or condescending, but he was kind of tired of the earlier exchange and perhaps ran out of patience after a long day. The KTM would be pleased to engage you again another time and at another forum.
Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your views. I hope you have a Happy National Day too. :-P
KTM,
I am quite tempted to discontinue our discussion because you are making me feel more loyal than you as an ex-Singaporean.
First, you want to kowtow to me and Vince Chan rather than your own fellow Singaporeans, because they whine! Maybe, this is really the essence of the FT policy. Foreigners are better than locals even if they don't go thru thick and thin with you. It's ok when all PRs leave in the recession period. There's always the whiny locals to take the CPF cuts.....
Then you tell me that a country producing sheep will suddenly have some sheep morphed into Indian chiefs amongst them to lead all to the promised land. Well, the fact that you term them Indian Chiefs, say alot lah.
I think there's no need to do any economic forecasting for Singapore or Australia. Australia has a lower per capita income than Singapore, its people are notorious for being lazy and things really are very slow-moving around here. Actually, I would caution Singaporeans wanting to migrate here.
Bigger countries have bigger problems. Those with efficiency issues would be very upset. They haven't gone 24/7 in Adelaide yet. Most of them still knock off at 4pm.
Even the proposal to extend the famous Glenelg Tramline is going on for almost a year with many rounds of re-drawing and public consultations are still being held.
By the way, they also had a bus fare hike recently. I think the increase is about 6%. But, apparently, the folks are ok with it since it had been a long time since the last one. I am not sure about such things as I don't take the bus and trains very much.
Nice to have chat with you. But, you'll probably hear more about Australia when Neil Humphreys writes from Sydney?
Huichieh Loy, you still have not answered the question of how the govt can listen without letting people talk much. Given that we are talking about how people feel about Singapore based on what happens in reality, it is only relevant to talk about what is actually happening or has actually happened, and completely irrelevant to think of all kinds of scenarios that could possibly happen but have never happened before and are not happening anytime soon. On the imaginary referendums that you've brought up, you said "suppose Singapore decides things by regular referendums". Who decides what issues to hold referendum on? The govt decides the issues based on what is of concern to people? How will the govt know what is of concern without letting people debate and discuss? Anyway, this referendum thing is another red herring like many of your arguments. Is this something that is even remotely going to happen in Singapore? Even when the country is split over a major issue like casinos, there was no referendum. So how relevant to the question is this referendum thing really?
Earlier you ask:
(1) Please quote real life examples in the Singapore context of how a relatively low level of free speech can be "perfectly compatible with a high level of actual participation in the actual reins of power".
Now you want to know:
(2) how the govt can listen without letting people talk much
I've already said that:
So you really are talking about the trivial connection between "speaking" and "listening". Then of course if I don't let you speak, then I can't be doing any listening either. If this is what you meant, then surely you are right. But it also means that I am not talking about the same thing as you...
In other words, I have already said that there cannot be an answer to (2)--it will be as if asking how listening is possible without speaking.
On the other hand, I gave you something in the region of an answer to (1) (which is closer to my concern), essence of which is simply this: the people can well be the government and impose upon itself restictions upon its own freedom, including freedom of expression.
But now you have another objection:
Given that we are talking about how people feel about Singapore based on what happens in reality, it is only relevant to talk about what is actually happening or has actually happened, and completely irrelevant to think of all kinds of scenarios that could possibly happen but have never happened before and are not happening anytime soon.
On the contrary. The possible and not actual is always involved. It is already involved in the complaint that "the gahmen does not listen to me"--which presupposes a sense to what might be meant by "the gahmen does listen to me" which is only a possible but not actual state of affairs. In other words, just in order to pose the complaint, you have to involve an implicit hypothetical.
Now, my question all along has been: what does it mean for the government to actually listen to me--in other words, I am attempting to put some concrete substance to the hypothetical that is already implied in the complaint.
Short version: if the complaint is relevant, then what does not actually happen is relevant. Alternatively, if all we are concerned about is only what actually happens and not what should and could happen, there would have been no complaint in the first place.
Now my hypothetical about the referendum is not meant to be about what 'can'--given the actual circumstances--actually happen in Singapore, say, next Monday. It is meant to illustrate in a concrete way the distinction between freedom of expression and political freedom. And incidentally, in the hypothetical scenario, Singapore ia a "plebiscitarian dictatorship"--as things were in ancient Athens and Swiss Cantons during the early modern period. What this means is that there is no "government"-"people" distinction: the people is the government, the government is the people. And even in the scenario, I did not say that the people are 'not allowed to speak' in some blanket sense, but that they imposed upon themselves serious restrictions upon their freedom of expression. This is perfectly compatible with their being able to debate, discuss, etc. But the moment someone cross the boundary to bring up the verboten things, then off with his head...
As I already said:
My point is this: we can distinguish two distinct things that we are after in making the complaint that "the gahmen does not listen" or alternatively, we "have no voice"--we want to be able to speak up and say whatever we want, and we want to have some influence over the formulation of policy. They don't imply each other. But we do want both.
And then I ask the question:
Think of it this way: (a) Do you agree that the value of freedom of expression is more than its ability to influence policy? Could it not also be because, where possible, we would simply like to be able to do or say what we please? On the other hand, (b) do you also agree that we find it valuable for ordinary citizens to have some sort of a say in policy making, apart from any implications for freedom of expression?
And as I said:
If your answers to (a) and (b) are both "yes", then we are not disagreeing at all. Both civil and political liberty are important; the only thing is how they might be balanced if and when they come into conflict.
I am a pragmatic person. since you don't get the earlier argument involving the hypothetical scenario, I see no reason to pursue it. But even without that argument, I can still pose the two questions above. So do you or do you not agree with (a) and (b)? The rest is not of consequence to me.
Tell you what: Let's say that I grant you your claim (hmm, wait, I already have, haven't I?) that listening is not possible without speaking. So what is the point? Presumably that: (P) the government "does not listen" because the people are "not allowed to speak"? This is a claim that goes beyong the earlier "People are not so unreasonable as to expect the govt to do everything they say. They just want the govt to at the very least listen to what they have to say."--which is at least compatible with (Q) the people is able to speak all they want but the government just does not listen. Ok, good. Can I take (P) as your answer to my question (what does it mean that "the gahmen does not listen to me/us"?)? If so, you have already answered my question--thank you.
It is obvious that most people, including myself agree with a) and b). Your establishing a) and b) however does not answer your claim of how a relatively low level of free speech is "perfectly compatible with a high level of actual participation in the actual reins of power" in Singapore. Please use actual events and incidents in Singapore to back up your claim, instead of resorting to another ridiculous unfounded claim i.e. that Singaporeans already participate in the actual reins of power by enforcing a low level of free speech on themselves.
Haha! I give up. The argument involving the hypothetical scenario argment is meant to establish the claim that "freedom of expression" and "political freedom" are not mutually entailing concepts (but that does not mean that they cannot, even often go together). And that claim is meant to lead me to (a) and (b). But since you already agree with (a) and (b)--despite your disagreement the earlier claim or the hypothetical scenario argument that was meant to establish it--both the argument and the claim become redundant. they don't matter to me anymore. So I'm no longer sure why you are pursuing the matter...
And since you do agree with (a) and (b), do you also agree that the "gahmen does not listen" complaint may well contain more than one dimension? i.e., it implies that we want to be able to speak up and say whatever we want, and we want to have some influence over the formulation of policy (possibly through public debate, etc.). There are two distinct things involved, and we want both. And the complaint implies that we lack both. No?
If you agree with all that, then we're going somewhere. We have, hopefully, made some headway towards clarifying just what is meant by the original complaint, giving it more substance and making it not sound as "lame" as KTM originally made it out to be. We may not be completely done yet, but going somewhere. No?
Now I do have a off-screen life and it beckons (something to do with national day celebrations). Since time is of the essence, you will have to forgive me for not responding to further comments unless they help bring us even further clarity to the original complaint than currently achieved.
Happy National Day
Huichieh Loy, from what you have written, it finally appears that you agree there is more than a grain of truth in the claim that the govt does not listen and that this is of importance and therefore not lame as KTM said. This was my comment in response to KTM and I'm glad I can finally rest my case.
Erm... you mean that was your bone of contention with me all along??!! I thought that I implied as much in my very first comment? My issue is that blankly stated, without elaboration, the complaint sounds "lame"--which is the very reason why I invite proponent of the complaint come forward (my second comment) to help us clarify just what the complaint amounts to so that we can get a better sense of what is that "grain of truth" (or more) that is supposedly buried beneath an apparently "lame" formulation. I was trying to help people such as yourself give substance to the complaint!
But this is not the end of the road: even after clarifying just what that supposed "grain of truth" amounts to (I'm not done even with that), there remains the further job of investigating into, all things considered,how justified the complaint is, to what extent all of the blame can be placed on the government, what can be done, if anything can be done at all.
I probably don't need to say this but see you there when I get to that part of the inquiry.
Huichieh Loy, you either agree or disagree with KTM that the complaint is a lame one, based on your own good justification, "substance", "elaboration" etc. If you disagree, which seems like what you are now saying, and yet at the same time say that you "have not been impressed by the complaint of 'I have no voice', 'I feel disowned by my country' before--because I've never come across coherent and well thought through articulations of just what the sentiment really amounts to', you sound like one confused person. Does this mean that even though you agree with the sentiment, you yourself do not have any "coherent and well thought through articulations of just what the sentiment really amounts to", and are therefore looking for help from other people to provide the justification and "substance" that you are trying but unable to come up with? In any case, I hope you now understand the simple relationship between allowing someone to speak and listening to that someone. This is the starting and fundamental clue to the answer you are looking for. If you are still unable to grasp this basic concept, I'm afraid any further "elaboration" and "substance" will be wasted on you.
a simpler life,
First, you want to kowtow to me and Vince Chan rather than your own fellow Singaporeans, because they whine!
Ah, perhaps you dun sell CKT for a living so you dun understand. The local whiners hor are a captive audience. As long as my CKT is edible, they will kwai kwai come and eat. You think the KTM so stupid as to call them whiners when they come to eat CKT? If the KTM virtually kowtow to you guys and you guys come back to eat his CKT, doesn't cost the KTM a cent also what. Eh, you really think that the KTM will kowtow to you in person meh? In any case hor, money got no nationality one hor. Singaporean whiners give KTM money, KTM will take; ex-Singaporeans give KTM money, KTM will also take. Will say thank you some more.... go dunno what GEMS campaign lah. If the KTM doesn't smile more than we're wasting tax payers' money lah.
Maybe, this is really the essence of the FT policy. Foreigners are better than locals even if they don't go thru thick and thin with you. It's ok when all PRs leave in the recession period. There's always the whiny locals to take the CPF cuts.....
Harlo harlo, what talking you? The KTM also dunno what FT policy, ang mo policy lah, but it seems to the KTM that it makes no sense why businesses would want to hire foreigners unless they are either better or cheaper. If foreigners are more expensive and more lau pok, we hire for what??
On exception though -- the MNCs like to hire these ang moh expats. But then, can you blame them? Logical lah. Next time hor, if the KTM's KT stall expands into a KT empire spanning US and Europe, do you think that the KTM will favour a Singaporean when it comes to hiring the regional CEOs? Of course lah, hire ang mohs, they sure cannot understand the KTM's tok kong Singlish and do the wrong thing one!
The KTM never scared dunno what ang moh come and open KT stall next to his and compete for his business leh. Our people are complaining about the ang mohs 'cos they are weak and cannot compete with the ang mohs and PRCs. Ang mohs can talk better and PRCs are cheaper.
It's not about okay or not okay when these PRC fellas leave during a recession. We got choice meh? At least while they are around, we got better people on the cheap. Also, when they leave during recessions, isn't it better for our own citizens? More jobs for the locals mah.
Some of those who complain about the CPF cuts of course feel real pain lah, but for those who dun really feel pain and complain for the sake of complaining, they are really small-minded and short-sighted lah. While PAP is a bit lau pok at times, they are not STUPID leh. You dun win elections by cutting CPF rates leh. Eh, CPF hor, not tax. CPF cut = pay cut. People dun like that. But PAP still do. Why leh? Because we are really NOT COMPETITIVE otherwise and the KTM sees with his own eyes in Shanghai. Very scary actually.
At the end of the day, businesses don't think about labour cost in terms of CPF rate. They are very clear how much people are paid on an annual basis. If you are worth $30K a year to a business, you get paid $30K, not a cent more, not a cent less. Doesn't matter what the CPF rate is. If CPF rate is higher, you get lower take home pay; if CPF rate is lower, you get higher take home pay. It's a ZERO sum game. People please wake up.
Civil servants will of course be upset lah, since Garmen cannot close shop and retrench people. Why should they get pay cut also? This is called the Principle of Equal Misery. Seriously, those who dun work for the Civil Service who would like the CPF rates for the Civil Service not get cut like the rest 'cos doesn't affect competitiveness please raise your hands!
Thanks for educating the KTM about so many bad things about Australia that he never knew before!
Happy National Day!
sporescore: nothing could be simpler. I don't make the complaint myself. I hear the complaint made. I am not impressed with the complaint as it is blankly stated (i.e., "the gahmen does not listen to me"--what's that supposed to mean?). But obviously there has to be something to the complaint, some grain of truth given that the people who make it seem to take themselves so damn seriously and even expect the rest of us to do likewise. Surely I ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, No? (In fact, I even have a sense of what the complaint might mean--though I am not completely sure if what I think it means is the same as what those who do make complain actually mean.) And since this is obviously a serious matter, I would like to know what the complaint ultimately amounts to--what is the true substance of the complaint. At the very least, I ought to suspend judgment until I know better.
So I invite people who make the complaint or in any case know better to come forward and help fill in the gaps, give substance to the complaint so that I can then have a better grasp of what is at stake and make up my mind. (And here, I thank lzydata, chrischoo, simpler life, trabant_er, twasher, piper, HS, etc. for chipping in their bit. To be honest, you had not been as forthcoming, but what you say does reveal things that are ultimately helpful.)
If I decide, after due consideration, that there is really something there, that the complaint is justified, that the gahmen deserves blame, then I would surely join in the chorus and say "the gahmen does not listen to me". Maybe I might even consider "it's better to emigrate when I have the the chance". But if, after due consideration, the complaint turns out to be unjustified, or only half justified, or even if justified, it does not properly imply that I ought to consider emigrating, then I won't be joining that chorus.
All I'm saying is that I'm not done chewing through all of the possibilities and ramifications, and thus have not completely made up my mind. I do have other things to do, you know. When I am done thinking through things, I will present my conclusions in a more complete post (hopefully, in a few days, but it's hard to be sure given present commitments). Until then, you will just have to forgive me: surely you can't fault other people for being slower than you are? No?
Since we are still at it, you might help me on this one: you keep harping on the "simple relationship between allowing someone to speak and listening to that someone". That sounds right (what I've called the 'trivial connection' between the two.) Presumably, your implied point is that, somehow, Singaporeans are "not allowed to speak", no? (And presumably the point is that if they are not even allowed to speak, there aren't any listening either. No?)
But I just want to be sure what you meant by "people are not allowed to speak". After all, I don't want to get the wrong impression that you are implying that the gahmen employs all these brown (or white) shirts thugs armed with duct-tape going around sealing people's mouth shut.
I think you are referring to the well known restrictions on freedom of expression and the freedom of the press in Singapore (e.g., this report is useful; scroll down to section 2a). Now I have some idea as to what that--means (the notion that there is less freedom of expression in Singapore). For instance, there are certain subjects (deemed immflammatory; mostly to do with religious and racial stuff) that are not supposed to be discussed publicly. So broadcasting "Mohammed Cartoons" is a definite no, no. Char's antics are a borderline case. The musings of the 'Seditious' bloggers also considered verboten. As the report puts it, under the ISA, "the government may restrict or place conditions on publications that incite violence, counsel disobedience to the law, have the potential to arouse tensions in the country's diverse population, or might threaten national interests, national security, or public order." Are you referring to all this? No?
But presumably "not being allowed to speak" is only half the story--because often times, the people are allowed to speak and are even encouraged to do so. And so the casino 'debate', for instance. (I don't recall the authorities clamping down on anyone who voiced an opinon about the issue.) The impression is that at least a large part of what is meant in the complaint that "the gahmen does not listen" is not that I am somehow "not allowed to speak". So here I am (all hypothetical) wanting to voice my opinion about plans for the casino (either for or against), or the latest bus-fare hikes, or the hiring of native english teachers, or the alleged discrimination of locals in favor of foreigners, etc. Now my letter might not be the one that is published in ST Forum, but often enough, a letter that is close to what I have to say is published. In any case, I raise the matter during the meet-the-MP session. I go on about it to friends and family members. But nothing gets done. It is as if the gahmen does not hear and does not care. Or they give a proforma and highhanded reply. Now I would have thought that at least a large part of what is meant in the complaint to be closer to the feeling that, yes, we are allowed to voiced our complaints and we did, but we don't feel as if those who listened deemed our concerns serious. No? If so, then harping on the "not allowed to speak" thing seems to diminish the full range of concerns implied by the complaint as I normally understand it. (That is, this second type of concern is not addressed automatically, if at all, by lifting the restrictions on freedom of speech.)
"For instance, there are certain subjects (deemed immflammatory; mostly to do with religious and racial stuff) that are not supposed to be discussed publicly."
Given the limited range of views and topics discussed in the media, you must know that "religious and racial stuff" are not the only things that are not discussed. When even the govt has stated it does not want to set clear OB markers, are you claiming that you know what the OB markers are?
I said:
"For instance, there are certain subjects (deemed immflammatory; mostly to do with religious and racial stuff) that are not supposed to be discussed publicly."
You said:
"You must know that "religious and racial stuff" are not the only things that are not discussed."
The reply--obviously, hence "for instance".
You said:
"When even the govt has stated it does not want to set clear OB markers, are you claiming that you know what the OB markers are?"
No, did I claim that? But grant that we don't know just what the OB markers are; grant that a part of what it means that the gahmen "does not listen" is due to the fact that people are, in some sense, "not allowed" to speak on certain issues--my point remains that this cannot be the only source of the alleged problem. My impression of the complaint is that at least part of the problem is that even when people are "allowed to speak" even "encouraged to speak", the gahmen doesn't seem to listen, or take heed, etc. No? (lzydata's comment on the casino 'debate' being an excellent example.) Or did you not read the last para. of my last post? Or are you denying that this is even any part of the problem at all, that the only problem is that "people are not allowed to speak"?
Or perhaps you think that even though "people are not allowed to speak" is not the only source of the problem, it is nevertheless the case that as long as people are "allowed to speak" (lifting restrictions on freedom of speech, no more ISA, no more OB markers, etc., etc.), then all of the other problems involved in the complaint will be resolved? I'm just trying to clarify what you think the problem amounts to. So help me there.
Thanks for the response! I thought it'd be fun to respond in Singlish as if I still remember it!
Aiyo, love to spend my tourist dolla leh. Laksa no good here lah, in Canada. Even hard to find poh piah leh...
For those who think I left for what? greener pastures? Sorry lah you feel that way. I only blindly follo parents when I only 11 years old, right? And garmen like parents no? Blindly follow is Singaporean, no?
I'm joking, joking ony lah. Damn hard to renounce citizenship leh... nearest embassy in Vancouver or in New York and me in Toronto. That's like walking from Singapore east to Singapore west many many times, too many lah.. make me headache.
KTM ah, who no want 2 girlfriend? Of course mah, what I no figure is why democratic nations think it's ok for dual citizenship with them? No dual citizenship, those poor lebanese got no where to go leh.
And why all these parade parade? Parade this, parade that. Who got time to look at skinny army men?
Again... not trying to argue. Not making a response, just happy that I enjoy reading all your comments. I'm back to normal now. I wish everyone Happy National Day!
Huichieh Loy, as long as the govt is the one deciding what can and cannot be discussed, it means that it is only interested in selectively listening to the range of views on the range of topics you see allowed in the media. It is therefore justified for people who want the govt to at least listen to what they have to say on topics that they are not allowed to speak about to feel that the govt does not listen to them on these issues that they feel are important. If you think that this is too trivial a reason, then I'm afraid you have to help yourself.
Please don't misunderstand--or twist my words. The connection between speaking and listening is 'trivial' in the sense that a tautology is involved. There is at least a sense in which (logically) necessary that "A is listens (to...)" implies "Someone is speaking"--just as it is logically necessary that "A is a bachelor" implies "A is a male". I certainly do not mean that the issue is somehow unimportant. (I was using the term "trivial" in the logician's sense, blame it on professional hazard, and since it appears to be causing misunderstanding, I will henceforth not use it.)
And please actually read what I said:
"grant that a part of what it means that the gahmen "does not listen" is due to the fact that people are, in some sense, "not allowed" to speak on certain issues"
In other words, I am already not disagreeing with your:
"people who want the govt to at least listen to what they have to say on topics that they are not allowed to speak about...feel that the govt does not listen to them on these issues that they feel are important"
Sure. That seems part of the problem. I can only repeat what I have just said:
...my point remains that this cannot be the only source of the alleged problem. My impression of the complaint is that at least part of the problem is that even when people are "allowed to speak" even "encouraged to speak", the gahmen doesn't seem to listen, or take heed, etc. No? (lzydata's comment on the casino 'debate' being an excellent example.) ... Or are you denying that this is even any part of the problem at all, that the only problem is that "people are not allowed to speak"?
Or perhaps you think that even though "people are not allowed to speak" is not the only source of the problem, it is nevertheless the case that as long as people are "allowed to speak" (lifting restrictions on freedom of speech, no more ISA, no more OB markers, etc., etc.), then all of the other problems involved in the complaint will be resolved?
Look, as I said, I'm just trying to clarify what you think the problem amounts to. But sure that can only be done if we listen to each other (since "speaking" doesn't seem to be the problem here)?
From what you are saying, you seem to agree with me that this is an important issue (as opposed to 'lame', 'stupid' irrational' etc). If so, I can rest my case as this has been my point all along, which if you read what I actually wrote and not split hairs on the definition of 'listening', you should easily tell.
Please get off your high horse. I already know that you take it as an important issue. And I never denied that it is an important issue. In fact, I take it seriously enough to attempt to engage you all this while, didn't I? What did I want from you and others? I want to have more understanding of the issue than a slogan ("the gahmen does not listen to me") and the conviction that this is an important issue.* And I certainly cannot help that you should perceive my efforts as "splitting hairs".
*Added note: And before any misunderstanding occurs, I do not mean to imply that all you have is a "slogan"--as amply demostrated by your replies, you, and all else who make the complaint, obvious havely more than a slogan in mind. It is that more that I want to grasp.
Vince,
For those who think I left for what? greener pastures? Sorry lah you feel that way. I only blindly follo parents when I only 11 years old, right? And garmen like parents no? Blindly follow is Singaporean, no?
The KTM never thought you left for greener pastures. You did mention you left at 11 leh. :-P Then again, would you mind telling us if you really think that the pastures are greener?
Of course mah, what I no figure is why democratic nations think it's ok for dual citizenship with them?
I think it's just that they dun really care two hoots about this matter. A matter of culture more than anything else. Also, some nations get to collect extra taxes, e.g. US citizens. The KTM's understanding is that US citizens got to pay tax to their Garmen even when they dun work in the US, but he could be wrong. :-P
This issue of dual citizenship or no dual citizenship means squat to the KTM, as "loyalty cannot be legislated" mah. Big deal if the fella is a citizen and when war comes, he runs away.
There are some privileges associated with citizenship however that are paid with tax payers' dollars. There is a question of why I should be happy if you use exercise those privileges if I get this sense that you are going to run away when war comes -- and when I say "you" here, I'm not referring to you as in "Vince Chan", just a generic you so no offense intended.
And why all these parade parade? Parade this, parade that. Who got time to look at skinny army men?
I think parade is good. Otherwise our SAF really "jiak lia bee". Give them something to do every year lah. Dunno whether you've watched any parades in recent years. They're actually quite nice in the KTM's opinion. :-P
The KTM also not trying to argue. How come you so defensive? Eh, what's this "back to normal" thing? You were "abnormal" before meh? Didn't seem like it leh. :-P
Happy National Day to you too!
KTM, I was just mentioning that I deliberate wrote in Singlish for that response and I was "back to normal". Not being defensive. =)
Truth be told, I haven't watch the parade for the last few years. Which I honestly found boring, but I decided to watch a few minutes of the stadium stuff this morning (8:00am here now) and it's still boring. But that's me =)
You know that same question came for the the many HK people that emmigrated out before 1997. But look, a lot of them went back to HK, right? Freedom is not about control, if you love something, let it go and if it comes back to you, then you know. People who want to defend will defend. Singapore is so small that any significant wars and our population density means more civilian casualties in times of war. It doesn't make sense for war, and Singapore is constantly preparing for worst when honestly I feel that having no option is really stupid considering how Singapore is strucuted as an island country. One normal bomb in Tao Payoh and how many people can escape alive?
But besides the point, people not working in US doesn't necessary have to pay tax to US. There are rules for exceptions. Length of stay is a consideration for Canadians, so I won't pretend to know the intimiate details for US but you are half-right in that some have to pay, some don't.
I gotta head off now, so I'll talk about "greener pastures" next time. Not ducking the question, but I'm under the gun to catch an appointment and I actually have more to say than time permit. Hopefully write something meaningful this evening.
Vince,
Thanks for your clarification about your abnormality and also US taxes. You got the KTM confused for a moment.
As for the National Day Parade, I accept that some will find it boring. The KTM also dunno how to appreciate dunno what opera, dunno Par what Roti. Roti John the KTM likes. :-P
Since you never do NS, that's perhaps why you dunno our top secret war doctrine (which the KTM of course cannot tell you 'cos otherwise the Mindef folks will come after the KTM and lock him up. Then hor, because DB got no broadband, the KTM will be very cham).
Nevertheless, it suffices to say that we don't plan to fight any wars in Toa Payoh. By the time the war is on the Singapore mainland, we are a lost cause already. Might as well surrender.
I hope you have a great time for your appointment. The KTM looks forward to hearing more about your "greener pastures". If you got enough grass, the KTM might just be tempted to come graze some cattle in your backyard.
KTM, Vince: Recent article about dual citizenship in Canada (with some bits about the US). Thought might be interesting to you.
Commenting by HaloScan
