I'm quite impressed by the forward-looking nature of their new leader. I'm also impressed by the unstated determination on his part to be as self-reliant as possible in that he had not demanded a new homeland to be set aside by the powerful countries responsible for most of the global warming in the world. I think it is a touching story and I hope other nations pay attention to consider setting aside land the Maldivian people can buy. Even better, if the rich polluting countries recognize their role in the eventual destruction of the Maldives and pay for such a piece of land on the Maldivian's behalf.
Quotes of interest in the article:
The Maldives is the lowest nation in the world. Its highest land is little more than two metres above sea level.
The United Nations estimates that sea levels may rise globally by nearly 60 centimetres this century.
"Global warming and environmental issues are issues of major concern to the Maldivian people. We are just about three feet (0.91 metre) above sea level," Mr Zaki said, speaking from the capital, Male.
"So any sea level rise could have a devastating effect on the people of the Maldives and their very survival".
Mr Nasheed's plan is to create a "sovereign wealth fund" using tourism revenues to buy land so that future generations will have somewhere to rebuild their lives if they have to leave.
He wants somewhere within the region, where the culture is similar - possibly India or Sri Lanka.
Perhaps Australia might be convinced to sell Christmas Island (which Singapore "sold" to Australia years ago - in fact, the British Government authorized the "sale" on our behalf at Australia's request. See the wikipedia entry on Christmas Island).
1) CPF cuts lower business costs. No brief explanation of the how.
2) "1001 ways" says Lim Swee Say.
3) It apparently just is. No comments.
4) A major off-tangent announcement on job re-training and re-employment (taking up more than half the article and unrelated to the title of the article).
Needless to say, I was disappointed.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Race and Political Leadership in Singapore
Here's a decent article about this on ST (Nov 9 2008): Non-Chinese PM?
This fact in the article caught my eye:
Last year, a survey of 1,824 Singaporeans' views on inter-racial ties by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies found that 94 per cent of Chinese polled said they would not mind an Indian as prime minister, and 91 per cent said they would not mind a Malay in the top post.
It is very intriguing to me what goes on in the mind(s) of our political leadership of the PAP.
2) Does Lee Hsien Loong truly believe that if the PAP were to offer a non-chinese as the potential next Prime Minister at the next General Election, that the backlash would be so severe that i) this individual would not be voted into his/her constituency (possible) or; ii) the PAP gets voted out of power (very unlikely) *just because* of this choice of a leader? Does he really believe Singaporeans are such racial bigots that we would gladly rather vote into power people unready to govern? (WP is the closest thing to an alternative governing party, but even they have demonstrated very little to the public about their readiness and willingness to govern the country).
3) Is Lee Hsien Loong acknowledging that we are still far from the "harmonious multi-racial" society that the PAP keeps proclaiming but refuses to allow people to talk about it? If we are so racially harmonious, why are they still afraid this foundation of society be turned into chaos because of a few extreme views? Are we as a society still mired in hidden layers of racial bigotry?
4) When our political leaders make comments like these, how often are these really backed by well-organized studies? When they say "no no no ... this will be chaos!", is that what studies show people will behave? Or is it merely how they *believe* people will behave?
Some personal comments about race:
I consider myself a closet racist. I think that way because I find myself in a state of discomfort when I interact with people from a culture I do not understand or I do not agree with (probably due to a lack of understanding).
In Singapore, where I am part of the racial majority, the closest thing to a cross-cultural experience I had was when my army S1 Capt. Krishnan invited us to his house. Back home, I never talked to others about their race, culture, history or belief systems. In part, I was nervous about government OB markers on such topics. It was also due to the fact that as a member of the racial majority, I hid within my own community (many people do, majority or minority).
It is only when I was in the US, when I was a minority, that I began to experience a flowering of "multi-culturalism". It helped a lot that the University campus environment is highly international. It also helped that the town (society along with the local government and leadership) had nurtured a culture very supportive of spontaneous cultural exchange of ideas (not the kind of formalized "inter-cultural" wayang the Singapore government engages in). Lots of people of all races are genuinely curious, asking me about my ethnicity, where I am from, what life is like, what I believe in. This takes place in almost any casual setting. As a result, I have learnt to also ask other people the same, to find out more about them and their lives. People are seldom judgmental and when they are, it typically becomes a matter of discourse as opposed to contention, a clearing of any misunderstanding as opposed to the heightening of tensions. We never suffer the chaos that PAP leaders often publicly fear. At the very worst, I imagine raised voices and ruffled feathers. Even these, I have never encountered in my many years here, even when the topic was religion which some people feel strongly about.
We in Singapore like to think of ourselves as multi-cultural. In fact, we are dwarfed by the scale of the multi-cultural scene in the US. For the most part, people of the same races and ethnicities tend to stick together and not interact. It is in more international campus towns like Champaign-Urbana where there is hope that we will all one day find sufficient commonality to feel strongly that we are all brothers and sisters of this world and that our differences enriches us rather than divide us.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
American Politics: Obama Elected!
I think this is a great moment in world history but those are complex, rambling thoughts perhaps for the future. I would like to draw contrasts to Singapore's political system and political climate for now.
The Obama victory speech:
The McCain concession speech:
Beautiful, gracious speeches. They will have serious difficulties ahead, in practice, trying to work together in the future. However, they publicly offer support for working together. This is a scene sadly seldom seen in Singapore, PAP and opposition alike. Too much bad blood, too many personal dirty-tricks designed to keep people out of politics and too much fear (or paranoia on the part of the PAP).
They also speak of working for "all Americans", not merely for those who voted for them. I contrast this to the sheer arrogance projected by the PAP when they indicated that wards that voted for them gets priority in government projects like HDB upgrading. Goh Chok Tong had even suggested Potong Pasir could turn into a slum if they continued to support Chiam See Tong at one point. If it was political rhetoric, it was poorly played. I shudder to think of a leader who would allow an otherwise ok estate to devolve into a "slum" simply because it's residents had not decided to vote his or her way.
An elected government, in my opinion, is expected to do the right thing and spend resources fairly to solve problems for the nation as a whole (e.g. upgrading estates based on age and disrepair). The PAP government is not such a government.
Obama said in his victory speech:
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.
For most of the time, the PAP takes the opposite "you voted for us, you do what we tell you to do" approach. To be fair, they have often tried to be honest about the challenges Singapore faces (for unpopular policies). However, the refrain has come across mostly been "trust us" rather than "why we believe this policy works and here is the detailed evidence". Officials in Singapore only seem to offer "reasons" that really do not mean much in the context of the problem other than the fact that they make remote sense. The "reasons" offered have always felt more as a means to assuage people than a means to help people understand. Only on rare occasions have they ever grudgingly listened to their constituents when they *disagreed*. The North-East corridor traffic conditions were only acknowledged after Mah Bow Tan took a trip on a peak-hour bus. The Serangoon Gardens worker hostel issue seems to be half-addressed, it was unclear how much of resident-concerns and suggested solutions were considered and a compromise reached.
Maybe some day Singapore can have her Obama-moment. Frankly, I do not see it happening in my lifetime. It scares me how many people believed in the William Ayers rhetoric. If something similar happened in Singapore, I am sure the ruling party would have employed the ISA. Worse, if an election went this way, I am almost certain Lee Kuan Yew would make good on his comment that "the army would have to be called in". At best, Singapore's Obama would come in the form of a PAP candidate if this is even to be possible.
