Not everything is about Singapore, not everything is about the
Singaporeans...
Who are our feverish nationalists here referring to as "us,"
"Singaporeans," "we," "local," and "native?
Chinese, Malay, Indian? or the Tangren only?
The understanding of our initial poster is flawed regarding
LKY's comment--you see, you do not take everything as stated
in English, it goes for other languages as well. Every language is
capable of its own humor, nuances, sarcasm, maybe you should ask
LKY himself or more native speakers of English to get what LKY
meant with his statement.
Personal industry and virtue may have brought us into better
life circumstances, but is it all our own? Maybe we should look at
what others before us have done for us. Consider yourself being
born in Myanmar, the Philippines, Bangladesh, would you attain the
status you have today? In such circumstances, individuals would
have to work hard, twice, thrice, a hundred times even in order to
equal the "Singapore lifestyle." Human beings are not equal in the
same way that opportunities in life aren't.
It has been a cause for concern among the Americans and
Europeans (Ang Mohs) that the rapid increase in China's wealth is
somewhat unhealthy for the Chinese people. Who can blame
them? Forty years of economic progress in Singapore and yet
its people are not showing modest signs of emotional maturity. It
is never enough to earn the buck, one also needs to know how
to 1) use it, 2) keep some of it, 3) make it grow, 4)
realize its true value--economically and socially. Europe with
all its sensibilities is aghast with the behavior of
Singaporeans, because the latter are disproving one important
direct linear relationship: as living conditions improve to
be more conducive for human living, so must our behavior
be. A sense of humanity may be lacking in Singapore, and who is
most guilty? I don't know, we should ask our nationalists here, is
it across all lines or is it particular to one?
You may talk like the financiers, economic geniuses that you
are, good schooling, good teachers, but realize that even economics
is a social science. Discussions on human populations, their
different qualities and subsequent interactions started the ball
rolling, even before stocks and derivatives came into the
picture. Do we really need a gargantuan GDP for so few
people? Apparently yes, because it is what the current [global
economic] system dictates, even if the wealth is more ephemereal
than physical. Singapore does not need the foreigners? Hmmmmm...
let me paint a picture:
you feel disadvantaged now, maybe in a few years that break will
come for you (don't be bored waiting, you're a Singaporean, your
chances are way better than a Myanmarese, Filipino, or
Bangladeshi)
congratulations Mr. Manager, so your wife wants to eat at that
swanky restaurant, who's going to serve her? the Singaporean not
that better off
wow that food attendant made it to branch manager, no matter
there are disadvantaged populations, still Singapore citizens
though
shiok! Singapore is filled to the brim with opportunities, even
that one has made it to manager, maybe we should make robots or
train monkeys to serve all of us?
now multiply this situation to the one selling your wife a
handbag in the future, cleaning your house, parking your car,
servicing your utilities, accepting your huge bank deposits,
advicing you on your investments, refining the petrol for your
benz, cleaning up the air after you. consulting you on your
appearance so it actually reflects your net worth...
Singapore is not the Philippines, it's not Indonesia, it's not
Cambodia, it cannot sustain 70 years serving you and the
economy with pure blooded Singaporeans, if there is one; especially
since everyone wants to be the "boss."
You say the government is unfair, favoring cheap and unskilled
(how sure are you about this?) labor. Prioritizing this and that,
what about the beggars, the Singaporeans who are still poor, and
you say you want real democracy? Give me a democratic society
without a poor individual, without a disadvantaged citizen.
Equality is never the right course for any form of society simply
because it is impractical, even abstract. Egalitarian? maybe.
Equitable? yes. TO EACH WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR HIM/HERSELF. Your
Singapore government has given you half of the silver spoon dear
nationalists, it is up to you to forge the other half. The
foundations and scaffolding have been made for you, it's up to you
to finish up the house. Don't make me give another
analogy.
The early philosopher talked of men of gold, men of lead, men of
iron, that everyone must fulfill the role their substance
dictated in order to create a harmonious society. Now this goes
against self-determination and the Americans and atheists won't
like that. So let us modify it in such a way that an individual
determines for himself his own substance. One thing is certain, not
everyone will be made of gold or make himself out of gold. No
matter the arrogance, a person is still capable of
self-realization, he/she knows what he/she is really made of.
Try to be more abstract, foreigners outnumbering you on the bus?
Imagine them taking over the government and subjugating you, not
competing for that job and that salary because it automatically
goes to them. I can forgive you for the lapses in understanding
English ( which somehow is still foreign in this country), but to
see things with no insight whatsoever, no empathy, no deeper
understanding--a chastising you are not in for, but lamenting for
your immaturity, ignorance, and hubris for the welfare of other
people.