Did you think the people that voted for Bush Jr did not believed
he was passionate for his country? How about the people who
volunteered for his campaign activities?
We can say Bush Jr and Dick Cheney were idiots with in
retrospect, after how they screwed up so badly in Bush Jr's 8 years
term. Only with hindsight, did the Americans realised what Bush Jr
said was best for America were screwing them up.
Even after how he screwed up his 1st term, enough people still
voted for him for the cliff hanger with Al Gore to happen.
I feature them because passion is a subjective thing. When
someone is passionate about doing something does not mean that it
is feasible. 10 men could give you 10 different opinions on what
direction they feel Singapore should go for.
Fact remains we do have limited natural resources. Talent
pools is subjective, what constitutes as talent in city
and in the farmlands is different.
But I have no disagreement with you here. I do disagree with
what the PAP defines as talents.
But what i want to see is "scholars" still having some say in
the political leadership, not cheapen their contribution to
the country . I want engineers and scientists in the
government, not just people who can deliver good speeches.
I see the possible other end of the spectrum of what you want to
pursue.
Was Hitler not a passionate speaker? Did he not want what is
good for his country? He does not touch alcohol or smokes, was an
artist and frowned upon debachery. He would have no problems
winning votes.
My understand of passion is from what i understand of history.
It can be just as potent a poison as being blindly focused on
scholarly achievements and cold hard numbers.
You are of course looking at the negative side of "Passion" in
political leadership.
As much as there are negative examples of "Passion" there are
also POSITIVE examples in political leadership - one of which
we are all familiar in Singapore.
Unfortunately, most passionate leaders stayed too long and
become corrupted by their own success and believe that they are
infallible.
"Talent" is "Talent" - in good or bad forms - talent is
subjective only in the "quality", "intensity" or "volume" in
different persons.
Skills - trained or naturally gifted - can only help
the person in performing a task, it will still require passion to
propel oneself to higher levels of human aspirations.
Whether a scientist or engineer or business person make it as a
political leader will depend very much on the character of the
person in being able serving the Public.
Some are cut out better in academia and even when forced into
the public spotlight to serve - will fail miserably, as there are
some who are simply contented in their present status quo and
prefer to insulate themselves from all others.
While a hawker may not have the qualification, but will have the
street-smart sixth sense of finding the best way to survive, and
when backed up by a team of trained advisers whom he can gather and
galvanised into a Team, should we stop and prevent such a person
from holding public office ?
Why should the Singapore political system make it exclusive for
scholarly talent, if the Talent Pool is supposed to be limited as
it is ?
If you refer to US politics as a point in discussion, there were
quite a few Presidents who were not academically inclined but have
proven themselves far better than the skewed passions of George
Bush Jr and Dick Cheney - (which as I had stated in my previous
response that each have their own agenda for holding public
office).
Ronald Reagan was a Movie Star who became President and
whose passionate positive spirit drove the US into prosperity
during his term, and knocked the wind out of Soviet Russia drive to
dominate the World with their Communist ideology.
Passion = Drive = Commitment = Leadership
For 52 years, Singapore has known only one type of politics -
the LKY-PAP type.
We should not allow our disgust with the
skewed PAP political ideology to affect other options
that are driven by the Positive Elements of what the PAP has
corrupted.
