I had a dinner meeting with my ex-boss yesterday. He brought along a former colleague who is one of his most-trusted lieutenants. My ex-boss is a professionally-accomplished and very busy man. I was honoured to spend the evening with him. Even though he is technically no longer my boss, I still address him as "Boss" - a combination of the familiar and the entirely-deserved honorific.
He shared with me the latest developments in the organization. I was very happy to learn that under his direction, it truly is growing from strength to strength. He just purchased two properties - one is a terraced house and the other a large plot of land whose backyard faces Pierce Reservoir. The former will be used as a satellite office cum chalet for the organization, while the latter is a private investment. He is an enthusiastic proponent of qi gong and the location of that land will be an ideal place to practise the art.
I was also honoured that he expressed deep appreciation for the help I had rendered in the past, the most recent instance being helping him ghost-write an article for a financial magazine. Dinner was in part to thank me for the assistance. He also reiterated his interest in exploring further collaborations between myself and the organisation in the near future. It is a growing firm that will need to upgrade its marketing, branding and technology knowledge. He believes that I will be able to play a role in these endeavours. I am humbled by his confidence. I told him that it would be an honour to be a part of the growth of the organization.
Over dinner, we also shared and reaffirmed each other in our common admiration and support for our country and the ruling party and its founder, our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. We also talked about the ministers we admired and those who perhaps had a few idiosyncrasies that made them stand out. It was a wonderful evening with fantastic company. I'm looking forward to our collaboration.
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Friday, 8 August 2008
the singapore song
This brought tears to my eyes. And I'm a 25 year old guy born post-Independence. Obviously I was not around to experience the pangs of my nation's birth and cannot viscerally compare the conditions before and after the war. But the fact that I am one of the beneficiaries of modern history's preeminent socio-economic developmental success story has never been lost on me. I am agnostic, so I do not thank "god" for this. Instead, I bow in gratitude to that god among men - Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Monday, 4 August 2008
the tension of opposites: a message for a friend
The main lesson I learnt vicariously from Morrie too many Tuesdays ago than I can remember, is the idea of what he called the "tension of opposites". It is essentially a function of the confluence of conscience and reason. In his (paraphrased) words: "Life is a series of pulls back and forth. You want to do one thing, but you are bound to do something else. Something hurts you, yet you know it shouldn’t. You take certain things for granted, even when you know you should never take anything for granted."
In this "series of pulls back and forth," most of us, the author explains, exist somewhere in the middle. He continues: "So many people walk around with a meaningless life. They seem half-sleep, even when they are busy doing things they think are important. This is because they are doing the wrong things. The way to get meaning into life is to devote yourself to loving others, and to create or do something that gives purpose and meaning and help each other."
Recently, a very close friend of mine felt the full force of that tension. The stolid pride of his emotional facade crumbled but the edifice of his character remained intact. Time and effort will see that the debris is swept away and a new structure built. A building that is rebuilt is often stronger and more beautiful than before.
In this "series of pulls back and forth," most of us, the author explains, exist somewhere in the middle. He continues: "So many people walk around with a meaningless life. They seem half-sleep, even when they are busy doing things they think are important. This is because they are doing the wrong things. The way to get meaning into life is to devote yourself to loving others, and to create or do something that gives purpose and meaning and help each other."
Recently, a very close friend of mine felt the full force of that tension. The stolid pride of his emotional facade crumbled but the edifice of his character remained intact. Time and effort will see that the debris is swept away and a new structure built. A building that is rebuilt is often stronger and more beautiful than before.
Monday, 19 May 2008
on democracy
The following was my response to a question posed in a forum that I participate in.
Question: Is a one-party system of government a viable alternative?
Reply:
The question itself presupposes that there is an absolute standard in political ideology. This is hardly the case. While most countries in the world are democracies to at least some degree, it is a relatively new phenomenon compared to the rest of their histories. History records autocracies that have thrived culturally and economically. But I concede of course, that it was during a different time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to democracy. It has served many people well. And I think with an increasingly globalized world, aspects of democracy will inevitably insinuate into systems of government of countries that want to engage the rest of the world. China is a good example. Although its politics remain Communist, its largely-free market economy bears the hallmarks of a democratic system.
However, what I am opposed to, is the imposition of a particular institutionalized form of democracy as an absolute ideal. This is what is happening today. The West believes that what works for them must necessarily work for everyone else. And it regularly prescribes it as though it were a panacea for the world's ills. This is utterly ludicrous. Look at Iraq. Look at Palestine. Look at Lebanon. All democracies. And all failed or failing states (I know, Palestine isn't technically a state, but you get the point). One wonders if the West's enthusiasm to push for democracy in historically non-democratic states is not just an insidious means to an hegemonic end.
So is a single-party government a viable alternative? Yes and no. It really depends on the time and place. Democracy for democracy's sake is foolish. If it works for a nation at a particular time in its history, then so be it. If not, don't trouble trouble if you don't want trouble to trouble you. The right political ideology is not necessarily democracy; it is whatever works for the country.
Singapore is a good example. For better or for worse, we are officially a democracy. Some would argue that we are only nominally democratic. But it does not cause me grief. I take heart in the fact that I am a citizen of what is today a First World Nation with one of the most vibrant and advanced economies in the world. Our government and people achieved this in the mere span of 40 years. Would we have been able to do this if we had subscribed to the democratic ideals espoused by the West? I submit an unequivocal "No". We built an improbable gem of a nation because we had a strong leader and a strong government that did not need to waste time in a useless tug of war with an opposition.
Today the opposition in Singapore seems worse off than if was 40 years ago. It is more fractious and populated largely by hollow demagogues who make better clowns than leaders. The two or three credible opposition leaders make for sorry figures not because of their political isolation, but because of the buffoonery within their own ranks. But this doesn't cause me grief. The future of my nation lies in an able government that it already has, not in a rabble-rousing opposition. Many people think that democracy necessarily means opposition for the sake of it. I reject that notion completely. It is not only puerile but also pernicious to a young nation's development.
But some would argue that an opposition would serve as a check and balance for the government. True, in principle, but not necessarily so. In another post in this forum, I asked: "What is the purpose of checks and balances?" Someone replied that it was to ensure accountability. But I begged to differ. They are both the same thing. Both checks and balances and accountability are not ends in themselves but means to one. That end being good governance. Why would anyone want a completely transparent government that cannot govern competently? So while accountability is important, more critical is the quality of government. In Singapore, I think we have a good measure of both. Again, not because of the presence of an opposition, but I believe, because of the ethic and wisdom of our carefully-chosen leaders. Singapore's socio-economic achievements speak to the efficacy of our system and the quality of the leaders who run it.
And with regard to your question on how to ensure the best policies are in place in a one-party system, it boils down to the same thing - you get competent and qualified people to enact them. Now if you leave politics to the whims of the electorate alone, you will end up with popular but not necessarily competent leaders. Limiting or at least managing the impact of the "free market" on your eventual candidates by having a very stringent party recruitment regime will go some way in ensuring that you keep the riffraff out. It smacks of elitism, but hell, if you're not superior to the rest of us in some way, what qualifies you to lead in the first place? Sure - Liberte, egalite, fraternite. But also "elite" for a well-qualified government.
So in summary, the right form of government for a country is not necessarily democracy, but whatever works for it, be it a one-party system or otherwise.
Question: Is a one-party system of government a viable alternative?
Reply:
The question itself presupposes that there is an absolute standard in political ideology. This is hardly the case. While most countries in the world are democracies to at least some degree, it is a relatively new phenomenon compared to the rest of their histories. History records autocracies that have thrived culturally and economically. But I concede of course, that it was during a different time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to democracy. It has served many people well. And I think with an increasingly globalized world, aspects of democracy will inevitably insinuate into systems of government of countries that want to engage the rest of the world. China is a good example. Although its politics remain Communist, its largely-free market economy bears the hallmarks of a democratic system.
However, what I am opposed to, is the imposition of a particular institutionalized form of democracy as an absolute ideal. This is what is happening today. The West believes that what works for them must necessarily work for everyone else. And it regularly prescribes it as though it were a panacea for the world's ills. This is utterly ludicrous. Look at Iraq. Look at Palestine. Look at Lebanon. All democracies. And all failed or failing states (I know, Palestine isn't technically a state, but you get the point). One wonders if the West's enthusiasm to push for democracy in historically non-democratic states is not just an insidious means to an hegemonic end.
So is a single-party government a viable alternative? Yes and no. It really depends on the time and place. Democracy for democracy's sake is foolish. If it works for a nation at a particular time in its history, then so be it. If not, don't trouble trouble if you don't want trouble to trouble you. The right political ideology is not necessarily democracy; it is whatever works for the country.
Singapore is a good example. For better or for worse, we are officially a democracy. Some would argue that we are only nominally democratic. But it does not cause me grief. I take heart in the fact that I am a citizen of what is today a First World Nation with one of the most vibrant and advanced economies in the world. Our government and people achieved this in the mere span of 40 years. Would we have been able to do this if we had subscribed to the democratic ideals espoused by the West? I submit an unequivocal "No". We built an improbable gem of a nation because we had a strong leader and a strong government that did not need to waste time in a useless tug of war with an opposition.
Today the opposition in Singapore seems worse off than if was 40 years ago. It is more fractious and populated largely by hollow demagogues who make better clowns than leaders. The two or three credible opposition leaders make for sorry figures not because of their political isolation, but because of the buffoonery within their own ranks. But this doesn't cause me grief. The future of my nation lies in an able government that it already has, not in a rabble-rousing opposition. Many people think that democracy necessarily means opposition for the sake of it. I reject that notion completely. It is not only puerile but also pernicious to a young nation's development.
But some would argue that an opposition would serve as a check and balance for the government. True, in principle, but not necessarily so. In another post in this forum, I asked: "What is the purpose of checks and balances?" Someone replied that it was to ensure accountability. But I begged to differ. They are both the same thing. Both checks and balances and accountability are not ends in themselves but means to one. That end being good governance. Why would anyone want a completely transparent government that cannot govern competently? So while accountability is important, more critical is the quality of government. In Singapore, I think we have a good measure of both. Again, not because of the presence of an opposition, but I believe, because of the ethic and wisdom of our carefully-chosen leaders. Singapore's socio-economic achievements speak to the efficacy of our system and the quality of the leaders who run it.
And with regard to your question on how to ensure the best policies are in place in a one-party system, it boils down to the same thing - you get competent and qualified people to enact them. Now if you leave politics to the whims of the electorate alone, you will end up with popular but not necessarily competent leaders. Limiting or at least managing the impact of the "free market" on your eventual candidates by having a very stringent party recruitment regime will go some way in ensuring that you keep the riffraff out. It smacks of elitism, but hell, if you're not superior to the rest of us in some way, what qualifies you to lead in the first place? Sure - Liberte, egalite, fraternite. But also "elite" for a well-qualified government.
So in summary, the right form of government for a country is not necessarily democracy, but whatever works for it, be it a one-party system or otherwise.