I guess it is with your definition of prosperity.
I consider that easy access to food, water, relative social
stability(jobs for one, though that is changing with the economic
crisis) and medical attention as the hallmarks of prosperity.
I won't say internet is a need, but it is handy to accquire
information and knowledge.
Any more than that is being greedy, and extremely vague.
What more do you want? You certainly have more than what you
physically need, that is certainly better than the 1
billion that did not have access to clean water and the 2
billion without electricity.
How many ways can the word "prosperity" be defined and
understood ?
If Life basic needs of food, water, social stability and medical
attention is prosperity, what possibly can "prosperity" be all
about ?
What is with all the mad academic paper chase and economic
activities that is drummed into Singaporeans constantly ?
Why will you compare ourselves with those Billions living near
the poverty line that is in our region ?
Is ambition so low that you do not dare to dream beyond what
we have ?
Why will you not compare ourselves with the Billions that enjoy
Standards of Living that are higher than ours - like in
Switzerland, Scandinavia, Holland, Germany, Spain, UK or even the
USA ?
By your standard of measure - "Any more than that is being
greedy, and extremely vague" - that is a definition that fits the
Singapore Elite Political Leadership.
Singapore has remained secular despite being surrounded by pre
dominantly Muslim nations (though i suspect that would change with
the strength and wealth of Christianity here).
What has religion to do with prosperity ?
Singapore's wealth is superficial and due to the high Per Capita
- (whether GDP or GNP) - that is largely due to the small size of
the population, much like the population in Brunei.
Unfortunately, on closer examination - numbers do not reflect
reality in both countries, although Brunei's situation is far
better than Singapore due to the fact that the Royal Family treats
the Brunei citizens as a larger family.
Your issue with Singaporeans marrying late is happening across
Taiwan, Japan, HongKong, Shanghai..etc. As long as it is a highly
urbanised population, it is an existing problem.
We often argue that our youths are leaving the country because
of the PAP, if not for my family i would have considered the same.
However, Singapore is still responsible for making us attractive as
immigrants in other countries, for the access to higher
education and facilities.
I may disagree what is happening now but i could hardly ignore
the fact that it is given me the opportunities to access
information and knowledge that allowed me insights on how the
world works.
Sweden is known for its high income tax and high cost of living
- despite such conditions - ‘Sweden’s population increase continues since 2004’
and certainly buck the trend of urban cities.
If you want to know the reason for this - try googling.
Your stance has always been that LKY's very existence and
has from the moment he took office, suppress our full
potential and that any leader could do a better job. My
question is impending our potential to what? Is there a
physical example of what you think we could have become?
Would i agree or even want the example you give? Would i agree
with your interpretation that it is better?
How did you so admirably come to such a conclusion ?
According to some research published in autobiographies about
LKY - ‘No Man is an Island – James Minchin’ -
during his existence as a school boy, he was practically harmless
but a domineering person, growing up in a family filled with
frequent quarrels between his father and mother that led him to
take side with his mother, and distancing himself from the
father.
His early working life as a young attorney during the 1950s was
involved in legal representations of Trade Unions - where he learnt
the workings of unions, and how the work force is mobilized as
pressure groups to be potent political force to fit some
agendas.
His first taste of politics was when he represented Trade
Unionists detained by the British Colonial Government, and fought
for the Rights of the Workers - to gather, to strike for safe
working environment and decent wages.
No one knows when his political ambition came into fruition that
led him to cross the line into political activism - by actually
joining forces with Lim Chin Siong the leader of the Trade Union to
form a political party called the People's Action Party.
The rest has become recent history of double crosses, false
referendums designed by LKY that drove us into a poorly thought out
merger arrangement to be part of Malaysia - going against the best
advices from local voices who understood the complex minds of the
Malay aristocrats and politicians.
Singapore could have been as vibrant as the private capital that
developed Hong Kong to what it is today, without the odorous and
ominous heavy hand of politicians playing the role of pseudo
entrepreneurs, capitalists, and investors that stifled private
enterprise through lop-sided competition.
In the 1960s, independent Singapore saw Singaporeans forced from
Primary Sector activities in agriculture, farming, and family
businesses to become skilled workers laboring for foreign MNCs that
have been given all the perks and protection against protests,
strikes, riots, and assured cheap labor.
Private enterprise was discouraged for reasons of poor economies
of scale, and a waste of limited "national resource".
In the 1970s, everyone was "whipped" into a singular national
idealism based on the PAP concept of what nationhood should be - it
was all about the nation not the individual creativity.
It was a continuation of the 1960s politics of "dulling the mind
with a full stomach".
In the 1980s, the tune changed to one of idealism to
attain ‘the Swiss Standard of Living’ -
which was less resilient then the real thing in Switzerland which
remained rock steady during the economic crash of 1987 that spun
South-east Asia out of orbit.
In the 1990s, the Swiss Standards was conveniently forgotten
with the ascension of LHL to the PM's chair - and the struggles
continue through the financial meltdown of 1997, the shock of 9/11,
SARS in 2002, Bird Flu in 2004 - with First World Standards of
Living melting as Singaporeans are told to live with short term
employment contracts that are renewable every 3 or 5 years.
In the midst of all these regressions, new legislations are now
passed to refine the methods in dealing with dissident Singaporeans
planning to have their voices heard.
Public money lost are not accountable, while new schemes are
created with the abandonment of pre-planned careful safeguards of
the Second Key.
If after all that has happened over the last 30 years, and you
still have no clue as to what our potential could have been, or
what could have been better - you will have to find some solace in
seeing your next generations continue to struggle.
