I could also say you are looking too much at the positive side of
"Passion" in political leadership.
We are both looking at the same thing, but reaching different
conclusions to it based on difference of experience,
upbringing and knowledge. Both are valid, neither is wrong. If
you want your democracy this basis has to be established.
If the hawker could prove himself then yes your logic is
correct. However, Passion to do good for the country is subjective,
and there is a difference between what is good for the short term
for the country and what is good for the long term.
While the hawker may not neccessarily make bad decisions, the
odds are stacked against him making good short term decisions and
bad long term decisions because he is not knowledgeable about
history and its precedents.
I am glad you chose Ronald Reagan as an example because i was
reading up on him.
Yes, during Ronald Reagan's Era taxes were down. But he also ran
up the national debt from 700 billion to 3 trillion. Essentially,
the prosperity of today is paid by the children of tomorrow.
That to me is unacceptable. The job of the current
generation is to leave something better for the next
generation to inherit, not to burden them with debts. I don't
care what fancy economic theories the Yales, Harvard and MIT
boys think of, that is plain wrong.
That's is precisely my distrust of the academically less
inclined. The tendancy for quick results and ignoring the long
term implications.
You hail Ronald Reagan for his accomplishments but i find
nothing worthy of getting my children to pay for my enjoyments.
That's praising the grasshopper and saying the ants are stupid.
I certainly do not view LKY as a hero or visionary. I accept him
as a human, he had some nice ideas and they're twisted and
corrupted because the world changed and the ideas did not. That is
the way of all things.
Democracy promises many great possibilities, but it can also
promise great acts of stupidity. The wise are often badly
outnumbered by the fools and fools have often thought themselves
wise.
Idealism of Democracy implies Faith, and Faith denies
evidence.
In Life, we have to have faith in the positive side otherwise it
will be sheer misery.
What is the premise of anyone's FAITH in something ?
FAITH has to have a beginning - can it deny evidence ?
If one's position cannot be changed by evidence, what does it
make a person insisting to depend on his faith ?
Where will "blind faith" lead an intelligent person, let alone
an uneducated one ?
This is the folly of a closed minded society, in which everyone
is expected to have faith in the Great Leader.
This is the embodiment in your statement - "I certainly do
not view LKY as a hero or visionary. I accept him as a human, he
had some nice ideas and they're twisted and corrupted because the
world changed and the ideas did not."
He had blind faith in his own ideas, and in his
own relevance - where did that kind of faith bring Singapore
?
Ronald Reagan served a purpose in his two terms in the USA, it
provided a foundation from which Bill Clinton was subsequently able
to bring USA forward.
It did not take the USA generations to recover from the debt
that was a consequence of Ronald Reagan's ideas and
policies.
Times changed, and the US democratic process threw up
a Bill Clinton who stayed for two terms and brought the US Treasury
into the Black again.
The USA will recover from the deliquencies of George W Bush and
Dick Cheney, as the creativity, productivity, and
industrial strength of the USA is from the hardworking
energy of immigrants from all over the world seeking a new
beginning.
Singapore before LKY was a mix of migrant people - mostly
without education, and they build Singapore to be the Jewel in the
Crown's possession that rival Hongkong with a longer and more
established history.
With the limited talent that Singapore is suppose to have,
should we limit ourselves only to the educated to provide
leadership ?
The educated should not be deceived by their own conceit, even
as much as they realised their dependence on those lesser than
themselves.
That is the problem with LKY who continue to believe in his
own conceited supreme ability - that only himself and those
whom he select can lead Singapore forward - even as much as he
depend on ordinary Singaporeans to stay in power.
"If I were in
authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who
are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not
have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively
in their interests."
- Mr Lee Kuan Yew,
1962
This is the danger that Singaporeans have to face - individuals
who outlived their relevance, and who are unaware of their own
station in Life.
