Just posted another comment on the 10 reasons thread, in response to a poster (breaky) who asked : would we be what we are now without LKY? (see below)
When I think about the question, the first parallel that comes to my mind is Liu Bei of the three Kingdoms. Never mind LKY's personality seems more suited to be Cao Cao, but Liu Bei stands out in response to the question because his success is more the result of a superb team than a single omnipotent leader. He have superb planners and strategists foremost of which is the peerless Zhuge Liang, fearless warriors to carry out the strategies in the form of the Five Tiger Generals (Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, Zhao Yun etc).
In the earlier part of his career, he thrived in the role of a charismatic leader that recruited many capable man, and won the heart of the general populace. By drawing on the impressive talents of his team he created a strong kingdom that was prosperous and strong enough to resist the aggression of his neighbors.
But Liu Bei ended tragically when he attacked Wu against the advice of Zhuge and Zhaoyun to avenge the death of Guan Yu who was captured and executed when Wu retook the Jing province.
In this battle, Liu won several skirmish in the beginning, but failed to heed the advise of the advisor Ma Liang by moving his troops into the forest to escape the summer heat. The Wu general Lu Xun counter attacked by setting the dry forest on fire and ambushing the Shu troop's as they first sought water, then retreat. The Shu army was decimated, and Liu Bei became a broken man that died soon after of disease.
What's the moral of the story, one might ask?
A team's success comes from the strengths and contributions of many - if a leader mistake the team's ability as his own and overestimate his ability, he is due for a fall.
If the people mistake the work of many able men as the contribution of a singular charismatic leader, then they are due for a big disappointment.
Going back to the question that is this posting's title - it would be more apt to ask if we would be what we are now without our founding fathers... who seems to share very little in common with our current leaders beyond being affiliated to the same political party. More on this if the opportunity arises.
------------------
@breaky
The Singapore we have today is definitely not the result of the efforts of a single man. The success of early Singapore is the result of a charismatic leader with a superb team. The architect behind the economic growth was Goh Keng Swee, the man behind the HDB story is Lim Kim San, and the man working the ground and casting the key vote that made LKY into the PM for the first time is Toh Chin Chye. In according proper respect to each contributor, we must also realize that the Elder Lee is not quite as all knowing and all capable as he is often made out to be.
I think that there are no other political party that I can trust to lead Singapore now. But the issue at hand is not the casting down of the PAP, but the voting of more opposition into the parliament to curb the arrogance and monitor the investments made with our precious reserves.
Just because we are doing better than our neighbors is no excuse for complacency – we should be asking ourselves : are we in a better position than we are 10-20 years ago? Reports have shown the middle and lower income families facing wage stagnation and regression while our leaders’ pay eclipse the highest paid leaders of the first world.
A extended monopoly of power breeds stagnation and decay – history stands testimony to this stark truth. For the sake of Singapore, for the sake of Singaporeans, and for the sake of the PAP even, we need to get more opposition into the Parliament.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Reasons why we cannot vote for the PAP in the next election
By all signs an election in the coming year seems inevitable.
It remains to be seen whether there will be any significant attempts mounted by the government to fight back on the alternative media of the Internet.
Below is a reply to a post on TOC titled "10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election"
More on it if the opportunity arises.
------------------------
AC on December 14th, 2009 2.31 pm
It remains to be seen whether there will be any significant attempts mounted by the government to fight back on the alternative media of the Internet.
Below is a reply to a post on TOC titled "10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election"
More on it if the opportunity arises.
------------------------
AC on December 14th, 2009 2.31 pm
@My Views
You were saying that the Elder Lee have never made any comments about the Army being brought in, hence I bring up the article to provide an example and some perspective of the matter. Whether his remark is justifiable, or whether it is just a blatant attempt at fear mongering doomsday scenarios of an opposition victory, is a matter of opinion.
I find it ironic that while the Elder Lee is painting a picture of the opposition destroying Singapore’s reserves, the largest blows to our reserves in the last 2 decades occurred under his watch under his team while operating under a cloak of secrecy.
Were there sufficient due diligence, and were the investments reckless? We will never know the true answer, because our Finance minister have already stated that the people’s wish to know is not enough reason for disclosure, even when matters are brought up in our Parliament itself.
This, amongst other reasons as given in the article, should serve as a wake up call to Singaporeans of the need for more checks and controls on our existing government – the reasons why we cannot vote for the PAP in the next election.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Mahathir's Singapore fetish and the story of the 3 sens water
Malaysia's ex-pm, Tun Mahathir Mohammed, recently posted in his blog a short article titled "The Modern Middle Kingdom".
The article can be summarised as his unhappiness that Singapore/LKY views itself as the centre of the universe; that Singapore's participation in the Iskandar development project will marginalise the Johorean Malays; that the Water agreements with Singpaore constitutes a grave injustice inflicted on Malaysia; and last but not least - that Najib is foolish for not carrying out his grand vision of a crooked bridge by forcing the demolition/replacement of the causeway.
Why did Mahathir agree to 3 sens per 1000 gallon during his time? (The period for the 2 windows for price reviews for the Water agreement fall during his 22 years term in office as PM). There are several good reasons, which he always conveniently leaves out whenever he beats the long dead horse of the Water agreements.
I posted a comment there too, but the blog's settings require comments to be approved - and its been more than 12 hours since the post count froze at 120. *edit* The comment went through, some posters took note of it, some others continued to ask "why 3 sens" - either they did not read other comments, or choose to ignore the points I put forth.
Below are my comments :
A few pointers lifted from an earlier posting in my blog :
1) The construction of the reservoirs, dams and pipe works to bring the water to Johor and to Singapore, as well as it's upgrading and maintenance is all paid by Singapore - over the years it came up to a cost of more than S$1 Billion.
2) Back then, for every 1000 gallons of water:
- Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
- Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water
- Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
- Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents
Johor made a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought at a much lower price from Singapore. That's a tidy net profit as the cost of construction is fully paid by Singapore (refer pt 1).
3) The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it have benefited Malaysia more for the status quo to continue (refer point 2).
4) Despite Malaysia choosing not to review the prices during the periods where they could under the treaty (refer pt 3), Singapore is still open to a price review - if only the Malaysia government under Mahathir could make up his mind on the right price - Mahathir first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, he increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Yet later, he increased the demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. It can be quite hard to play football if the goal posts keep moving.
5)In Dec 98, Malaysia under Mahathir decided the drop the price reviews approach as a singular negotiation (refer pt 4), and requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. Then the Malaysian government unilaterally called off the package approach.
So all this ‘package approach’ linking sand, air space etc to water price reviews originated from Mahathir - not Singapore. Thus, both Malaysians and Singaporeans have the dear Tun to thank for the ‘creative’ approach of bundling multiple issues together.
The article can be summarised as his unhappiness that Singapore/LKY views itself as the centre of the universe; that Singapore's participation in the Iskandar development project will marginalise the Johorean Malays; that the Water agreements with Singpaore constitutes a grave injustice inflicted on Malaysia; and last but not least - that Najib is foolish for not carrying out his grand vision of a crooked bridge by forcing the demolition/replacement of the causeway.
Why did Mahathir agree to 3 sens per 1000 gallon during his time? (The period for the 2 windows for price reviews for the Water agreement fall during his 22 years term in office as PM). There are several good reasons, which he always conveniently leaves out whenever he beats the long dead horse of the Water agreements.
I posted a comment there too, but the blog's settings require comments to be approved - and its been more than 12 hours since the post count froze at 120. *edit* The comment went through, some posters took note of it, some others continued to ask "why 3 sens" - either they did not read other comments, or choose to ignore the points I put forth.
Below are my comments :
A few pointers lifted from an earlier posting in my blog :
1) The construction of the reservoirs, dams and pipe works to bring the water to Johor and to Singapore, as well as it's upgrading and maintenance is all paid by Singapore - over the years it came up to a cost of more than S$1 Billion.
2) Back then, for every 1000 gallons of water:
- Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
- Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water
- Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
- Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents
Johor made a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought at a much lower price from Singapore. That's a tidy net profit as the cost of construction is fully paid by Singapore (refer pt 1).
3) The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it have benefited Malaysia more for the status quo to continue (refer point 2).
4) Despite Malaysia choosing not to review the prices during the periods where they could under the treaty (refer pt 3), Singapore is still open to a price review - if only the Malaysia government under Mahathir could make up his mind on the right price - Mahathir first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, he increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Yet later, he increased the demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. It can be quite hard to play football if the goal posts keep moving.
5)In Dec 98, Malaysia under Mahathir decided the drop the price reviews approach as a singular negotiation (refer pt 4), and requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. Then the Malaysian government unilaterally called off the package approach.
So all this ‘package approach’ linking sand, air space etc to water price reviews originated from Mahathir - not Singapore. Thus, both Malaysians and Singaporeans have the dear Tun to thank for the ‘creative’ approach of bundling multiple issues together.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Does strong language equate disrespect?
Mr Tan Kin Lian, former chief executive of NTUC, has been enjoying some popularity writing as a columnist for The Online Citizen (TOC). Recently, he questioned the flak that Health Minister Khaw Boon Wah has been receiving for his suggestion for cheaper homes for the elderly in Johor. Following a flurry of exchanges in the comments section, (some of which criticised Mr Tan) he followed up with an article - "Respect other people's views".
I feel that given a person of Tan's worldly experience, he is surprisingly delicate - he was visibly miffed whenever he encountered strong language.
I think that it is unrealistic to expect political debates to be gentle, and that participants should refrain from any and all comments that could be construed as an attack any of the participants.
Below is the comment I posted on that thread :
"AC on February 24th, 2009 9.36 am
I feel that given a person of Tan's worldly experience, he is surprisingly delicate - he was visibly miffed whenever he encountered strong language.
I think that it is unrealistic to expect political debates to be gentle, and that participants should refrain from any and all comments that could be construed as an attack any of the participants.
Below is the comment I posted on that thread :
"AC on February 24th, 2009 9.36 am
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sir Shoealot Jahnke vs Wen Jiabao
Was reading a news article on the German student/researcher Martin Jahnke who threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he gave a speech at Cambridge during his 3 day trip to Britain.
Following some internet search for more articles, I came across a European forum which actually ran a poll "Martin Jahnke, European hero or villain?" in which the majority polled called him a villian.
There was a discussion on the same thread on which I added my 5 cents worth :
I think that the issue to note is the consequence of throwing the shoe - instead of damaging the Chinese premier, the act ended up scoring sympathy for Wen from neutral observers and provides moral high-ground for pro-china factions.
If he had succeeded in baiting Wen in question and answer to inappropriate remarks or behavior, then Martin Jahnke would be truly be a hero to those aligned to his causes. But it seems that he lacks in not just oratorical skills, but good sense as well.
As things stand, the rash act of lobbing a shoe at an honored guest of the distinguished school dishonored not just the individual himself, but the reputation of the school is also tarred.
He can only be a hero to those at his same level or below.
Following some internet search for more articles, I came across a European forum which actually ran a poll "Martin Jahnke, European hero or villain?" in which the majority polled called him a villian.
There was a discussion on the same thread on which I added my 5 cents worth :
I think that the issue to note is the consequence of throwing the shoe - instead of damaging the Chinese premier, the act ended up scoring sympathy for Wen from neutral observers and provides moral high-ground for pro-china factions.
If he had succeeded in baiting Wen in question and answer to inappropriate remarks or behavior, then Martin Jahnke would be truly be a hero to those aligned to his causes. But it seems that he lacks in not just oratorical skills, but good sense as well.
As things stand, the rash act of lobbing a shoe at an honored guest of the distinguished school dishonored not just the individual himself, but the reputation of the school is also tarred.
He can only be a hero to those at his same level or below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I think that while we should not deviate from the issue at hand into personal attacks and insults; we should not expect the polar opposite as the norm - that all communication have be respectful and polite before any exchange can actually take place. Let’s not be overly sensitive and delicate - political debates are hardly the realm of ’sugar and spice and everything nice’.
—–
I think that cheaper nursing homes overseas should be an option explored by the private sector instead of being spear-headed by our Health Minister. I think that as a minister Khaw should be aware that he represents the government, and that his words will be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as government policy inclinations.
Unless I am mistaken, Khaw himself had said strong words publicly condemning the lack of filial piety. For the same man to broach on the topic of not only sending one’s parents to a home for elderly, but a home that is in another country, is very inappropriate and borders on hypocrisy. Is it then surprising that Singaporeans take him to task?"