An email to the PAP highlights some disturbing plans for the
future of Singapore, amongst other things:
Dear Mr. Lee Hsien Loong,
-----------------------
HERE'S TO 40-OUGHT YEARS OF SUCCESS
-----------------------
Major Contents:
- Medical Policies
- Prospective Island-Wide Camera Surveillance
- Nicoll Highway Collapse
- The Military
- Youth
- Conclusion
-----------------------
Dear Alleged Leader,
Allow us to congratulate you on your party's 40-plus years of
running this island. Obviously your own effort is a minority in
view of your father's - but no matter, we will acknowledge you just
the same.
In particular, we would like to congratulate you on the persistence
of outstanding beaurucracy (a recurring theme in this memo). In
fact, public services are so caught-up in their own red-tape that
it seems at times that they would be more in service of the
government (that means you, if you haven't caught on) than to,
well, the public. Perhaps you should re-label all such entities
"Government Services". It would have much more clarity and
certainly be more in-line with what is printed on the top- left
corner of official envelopes...
Sometimes certain policies have suspiciously specific 'gaps', that
they seem specifically targeted to disadvantage certain
demographics: we would take a cue from -
MEDICAL POLICIES.
For instance, certain individuals who have terminal illnesses are
cut off from access (that's ACCESS, not subsidies) to certain
helpful medications based solely on their age or some other silly
factor. If one is about to die, age is not relevant...right? But we
do not believe that many individuals buy your numerous
justifications (Singaporeans don't seem to have heard anything from
the likes of you other than justifications of current policies),
but are too involved in their daily struggles to oppose you.
Another triumph for obfuscating beaurucracy!
We cannot help but wonder if the various rhetorics and 'symbolic'
rules were contrived to hide your personal vendettas. If certain
individuals within that demographic had done you wrong, target that
demographic and tailor policies to 'incidentally' disadvantage them
when they need help. Oh, sure, there will be many suffering
bystanders, but that is 'collateral damage' to you.
Aren't euphemisms beautiful? Statistics are always more agreeable
too, no need to face up to ugly personal realities when looking at
a colourful pie-chart. You are safely out of touch with the daily
hardships of the average local from the awakening each the morning
through your classy dinners-for-six (now five, we presume) at a
pre-booked Raffles Hotel ballroom and onwards. A simple tour of
residential areas obviously won't fix this overnight. We ALL
arguably live on "peanuts" compared to your lot - even the
President of the United States. What have you to fear from imposing
a minimum wage - even a below-average one? Is it so difficult to
enforce that each person has the right to earn at least a dollar
each month? That would certainly be a start - otherwise, please
humor us with another stock explanation.
It would really be easier to assume simple self-centeredness on
your part, and that such policies are tailored to benefit your
favourites (the healthy, competent AND conformist) rather than to
single-out the disfavoured. The latter is trickier to explain away,
and to suggest that you succeeded is awarding you WAY too much
credit in this case.
There is no other way to otherwise explain the upholding of even
something as trivial as the banning of cats from HDB. It would be
easier to have the heads come out and state plainly that they have
a phobia of cats that they want to impose on the population (which
is by now common knowledge). I have faith that the public would
simply take it in stride and conveniently gloss over it, like they
have always done. Frustrating the more knowing with silly little
untruths make the HDB sound somewhat pretentious and gullible at
best, or patronizing and grossly unqualified at worst. Cats are bad
for the environment? No more or less than any other creation of
nature - except people, of course.
But if you *REALLY* cared about the environment, we're sure you
would put more resources into real action (or non-action for
destructive projects), rather than launch campaigns that create an
illusion of fantastic progress in this endeavour - or, worse, hold
the everyman accountable for more than they are due. You could have
thought twice about building more ephemeral entertainment
facilities for the sake of the environment (the 'protection' of
compulsive locals notwithstanding), but of course money still
speaks louder than the value of your gardens.
Speaking of the environment, it seems that your-
PROSPECTIVE ISLAND-WIDE CAMERA SURVEILLANCE,
though probably well-intentioned (we hope), is grossly misguided.
We expect that you, by now, know the difference between littering
per-se and the big picture that is pollution. Disproportionate
micro-management is not the answer; maybe an different kind of
appeal is needed to persuade the public. Do we REALLY need a face
recognition system to trace every single litterbug on the street?
Do we REALLY need that inevitable disgrace of a public figure (and
eventual nation-level embarassment) when the camera decides to
penalize him for absently dropping a shred of paper?
Do you REALLY intend to spend the tax-payers' money on such
self-righteous overkill?
We do not even need to reach into the implications of taking such
an over-analysis of (relatively) minor personal actions in a public
space to its next logical step. At that point you will do well to
step back and remember briefly that you are running a country, not
a Nazi regime. Is this where you plan to position yourself to start
enforcing the laws that attempt to regulate private activity?
While we are on that subject, we would have expected that your
genuinely competent Mentor (you should have seen him when *he* was
the opposition!) would have had more conservative views on
something like, say, male homosexual relations. Instead, he of all
people broke the old-fashioned mold often associated with his
generation and took the mellow approach. But alas, his "PAP is
Hip!" son seems more uptight about something as inconsequential as
that. Believe us, the public pays about as much attention to your
law for *that* as your laws for contraband cigarettes and chewing
gum (maybe less - and we know you too well). A small gesture to
acknowledge the (understandably invisible) contributions of the gay
male population would not cause the country to fall apart any
faster, and not many even care about marriage as much as just
knowing that they won't be arrested upon stepping out the front
door. They would thank you for even that little bit by performing
better and maybe actually voting for you, and you have one less law
to worry about - but alas...
Funny how many of these 'moral' laws seem to deliberately disfavour
males, though. We can only be incredulous whenever a remark on this
on a legal debate is handwaved as humor. Does no one perceive this
as a real problem of discrimination against men - one that less
scrupulous women can exploit? We would hazard a guess, though.
Seeing how your good Mentor said he would not mind only a gay
*grandson*, he must be VERY disappointed in you (especially that
you seem to sometimes go out of your way to contradict him).
What are you afraid of?
- Your own masculinity? That's your problem, don't make it
ours.
- Appearing to agree with your father too much? Whatever, as long
as you do not cross the line into unfilial territory, we would
suppose.
- The wrath of women? They are often more reasonable than men -
just don't patronize them with priviledges they can well succeed
without: they tend to notice.
- Gender equality? You cannot escape this anyway. Don't
underestimate women in any circumstance.
- An internalized prejudice? Fear not human, nobody cares for your
dirty little secrets anyway. Everyone just wants their
well-deserved livelihood.
Judging by your more scrutable behaviour, anybody could conclude
that money (not the people) is your true number-one resource.
Therefore we understand that your first tactic in achieving
anything is to buy it (like the goodwill of your people) if you
cannot simply give it to yourself - even the late Suharto had the
good decency to actually EARN his rank, but more on the military
itself later.
And of course, someone with that kind of money would be able to not
only buy, but buy the best for himself. We only wish that you would
do the same for the country, and not merely claim to do so.
Remember the -
NICOLL HIGHWAY COLLAPSE?
We're sure that with all the money your government accumulates, you
could have afforded even a slightly better contractor. Sure, it may
have cost more money, but it would have cost less lives. But no,
your cronies had glossed over such insignificant details and made a
beeline for the cheapest offer. Congratulations on your handling of
the resulting disaster, though. You had managed to turn the heads
of the public away from scrutinizing the elements that led to it -
and played on your indoctrinated patriotism to turn a major mistake
into an inspiring event. Pure magic! You never cease to amaze. Of
course we cannot blame a public that has been misled into the
illusion of an infallible government that never makes mistakes -
it's obviously ALL somebody else's fault. Meanwhile, you hastily
erect new guidelines to ensure this never happens again. Classic
formula: Handle hastily, make a big mistake, cover-up with an
inspiring speech, and come down hard on someone else behind the
curtain. You sir, are the local god of formulaic
manipulation.
Not that a thousand new laws in themselves make an
improvement:
THE MILITARY
is a prime example. You might want to remember that a military
exists to *fight* external aggression, not bury itself in paperwork
that no one seems to be capable of handling.
- If we had 5 cents for every time a to-be-enlisted youth gets a
summons for not attending his medical because the initial
notification is still sitting on someone's desk, we'd be able to
buy a car.
- If we had 5 cents for every time a full-timer is notified less
than a week of his out-run date instead of a proper month, we'd be
able to buy a flat.
- If we had 5 cents for everytime a simple 5-minute procedure was
hindered for an hour (or three) of a vicious cycle of arbitrary
authorities refusing endorsement unless 'the other party' does so
first, we'd be able to privatize the army.
And while the Unfortunate work for the Unqualified to perform the
Unnecessary for the Ungrateful, the high-ups are busy
congratulating one-another with handshakes and medals, inflating
one-another's egos on a job well-done regarding
God-Knows-What.
If Singapore was EVER invaded, Singapore is doomed. While the enemy
bangs at the front gate, the authorities would have to reach an
inch-thick manual on how to put their first foot forward - maybe
literally.
And this is what happens when you over-focus on scholarships. A
degree or two in academia is all fine and dandy, but it will only
get you so far without life experience - rolling up your sleeves
and getting down to it, maybe stainng your precious uniform in the
process. But if the authorities do not want to get themselves
dirty, no one wants to either - and THIS is the origin of the
'pampered soldier' problem. Tidyness is no longer a symbol of
discipline; it is a symbol of sterility.
Do not confuse this with the abuse of soldiers! Vigour has nothing
to do with that. You abuse them with meaningless paperwork
anyway.
Should we blame our wayward
YOUTH
and their parents/peers alone for their lashing out with violence?
Mindless and undisciplined a teenage wasteland may be, it seems
like the lesser of two evils. If they pursue worldly success, they
may well be forced to sell their souls to you later on. If they
oppose you there, you take everything away from them - better to be
a street gangster and know you are being honest to yourself - true
integrity and friendship is forged in the harsh reality of
survival, not the artifice of culture.
We can and should blame your public education system. If you had
the presence of mind to enforce moral education in schools from day
one, we may have less of this issue today. Nothing wrong with
emphasizing science and maths when we needed it, but route
memorization is thwarthed by innovative thinking. Nothing wrong
with trying to elevate the Arts, but throwing money at it is the
laziest and most insincere thing to do (Art does not co-exist
peacefully with censorship and indoctrination by the way - expect
deconstruction). Nothing wrong with putting moral guidance in the
hands of parents, but when high costs of living force both to work
and teachers skim over or outright ignore the subject in favour of
results in other categories, children have no more guidance. It's
too late t fix that problem in this current generation.
CONCLUSION
Some gentle reminders:
- This is NOT a Nazi regime. They didn't need social workers,
businessmen or any other reality-check personas in their retinue
because they were too busy building ivory towers for their lofty
vision.
- Less extreme, this is NOT (technically) a military dictatorship
either. As a good government, you *address* the needs of the
people, not conceal them. Not many soldiers are good at getting
this right: they are too used to throwing their weight
around.
- The government is NOT a royal family. Your father had made it a
point to emphasize the virtues of the hardworking peasant
background and meritocracy. No one here (least of all you) has any
rightful claim to elitism. Just because you were "trained" for the
position does not mean you are necessarily more qualified than any
other potential leader by default - this is the fallacy of
academia.
- This island is NOT a sugarbowl society. The people are acutely
aware of their hardships. Just because they are not real enough to
you doesn't mean that it is not somehow reflected in your
performance.
- It may surprise you but Singapore, to a certain extent, DOES owe
its people a living. We all do our part by doing what each of us do
best, trying to make things easier for ourselves and the people
around us with product and inter-servitude. We therefore have the
right to expect good leadership from leaders and good management
from managers. Thus, when the people elect a government to make
'Big Picture' decisions, they effectively place their lives (and
livelihood) in the hands of people from whom they have the right to
expect Good Governance in the form of Good Decisions that garner
Good Results for everyone, and not just a handful of favourites. So
even if you choose to so carelessly disregard the impending opinion
of the United Nations itself (a Big Picture if there ever was one),
you still would owe your people, at the very least, a Good (and
Credible!) Explanation when they wonder why things are NOT in fact
going so well: an explanation you may have to craft in earnest
because you are unlikely to find one in your stock archive.
- We are ALL servants to one another, including you. A farmer is a
servant of the people who serves produce. A salesperson serves
customers with the right product recommendation that meets a
customer's needs. An accountant serves with good management of
figures for clients. A teacher is a servant to the students who
will grow up to serve with their own acquired respective skills. A
government is a servant to the people who serves with proper,
responsible use of the people's collective resources. Therefore,
you are NOT priviledged to act selfishly, despite what your
surroundings might suggest.
And last of all, remember your humility, when everything is
slipping away from you at the end of your days, and the shadows
wait for your turn to come. You are only just a man - a man like
any other. You are born, you live, breathe, eat and defecate, you
learn, exercise your desires, hide your shame, forge relationships,
destroy them, get sick, grow old and die alone like any other man.
You might succeed in delaying it, but there is no promise, no
servant, and no badge that can save you from the inevitable. In the
same way all kingdoms come, rise and fall. Both great and small -
there are no exceptions, and the universe moves on. Singapore, like
any other country, is marked and defined by the words of its
people. When mankind is absent, all things are unnamed and
unmarked. The Earth does not belong to mankind; mankind belongs to
the Earth.
In the same way, the people do not belong to you - you belong to
the people. Remember this and you might fare a little better with
the time you have left, and hopefully people may still have it in
them to speak good of you when you are gone, because you cannot
hang around forever. The universe does not permit this even of
mountains.
Meanwhile, enjoy the rest of your rulership!
With Utmost Sincerity,
é J. Scribes