i think all Singaporeans must practise critical thinking and not
accept everything the govt or 140th says without questioning.
Scholars
A reduced, changing force
A different lot today, theyre more individualistic and diverse
compred to previous ones who shared objectives with political
leadership.
By Seah Chiang Nee, littlespeck.com
Oct 1, 2006
The process of reducing the large number of government scholarships
every year seems to have started - by as much as half in some
ministries.
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had announced some time ago this would free up
some academically bright graduates to become entrepreneurs
(unmentioned: probably also because too many were breaking
bonds.)
But some observers feel that there may be another reason.
The current new breed of scholars is a lot different from the
smaller, exclusive number which shared the Peoples Action Partys
political objectives (not all of them remains unchanged) in the
early days.
Today they are more numerous, diverse, individualistic and less
enthusiastic to follow the PAPs political line. Some are
sympathetic to the opposition parties.
Mr. Lee must be worried that there could come a time when instead
of serving his partys goals, they will work for the Workers Party
or other parties after completing their bonds, of course.
Many dissidents will probably be tempted to remain in the
bureaucracy by either the high office or high wages but not all.
The others could spurn them to follow their own political
inclinations.
To have even a few bright sparks the best academic minds of the
land - to join the opposition and work against the PAP will not be
acceptable to its leadership, especially when they have been
trained on a system started by it.
Former senior civil servant, Ngiam Tong Dow put if very frankly
several years ago: So far, the PAP's tactic is to put all the
scholars into the civil service because it believes the way to
retain political power forever is to have a monopoly on talent. To
me, that's a very short-term view."
He continued, If you want to challenge the Government, it must be
spontaneous. You have to allow some of your best and brightest to
remain outside your reach and let them grow spontaneously.
How do you know their leadership will not be as good as yours? But
if you monopolise all the talent, there will never be an
alternative leadership. And alternatives are good for
Singapore."
This is where we need to appreciate understand that the future of
this country is very much dependent on the model that we choose.. A
two-party state is the minimum, anything less and we are playing
with fire.
Meritocracy fueled the single party model and it does sound warm
and nice. A single party unfortunately needs to be led and the
assumption is the leader is always going to be good. This is where
the model begins to fall.
Putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea
even to housewife out marketing for the family. (end quote)
This is especially true if they are sycophants, pretenders and
blindly follow orders to further their own career promotion.
Having too many of them would be disastrous for the future of
Singapore, something the PAP leaders must have pondered over.
So how far will scholar-bureaucrats prepare to disobey political or
other directives that they disagree with?
The answer is a general Not much as long as they remain in the
service.
Many will implement them against their own conscience. A few will
leave in protest or even join the opposition and speak out against
the government, but all are likely to follow orders as long as they
are in service. Thats the culture.
Some self-questioning has already begun privately.
In Confession of a scholar Singapore scholar police, blogger
Kitana said:
I fear that I will be one of those being compelled to maintain
Singapores public order by cracking down on possible dissidents
or actions of similar political implications.
I believe that the police is a force that serves the nation, that
we serve to maintain order and security, not for the good of any
one party, but for the good of the citizens as a whole.
We work within the confines of the law and we serve to uphold the
law. But sometimes the way the law itself is being used a
justification for actions with very vague moral and legal
boundaries, it worries me that I will be forced to make a call or
an order that I dont want to.
And I fear that it will come to that, because my idealism is being
tested with every article and picture I see.