causality of behaviour

if there was a line demarcating those on the side of the whites, and those anti-whites, i'd probably fall into the area consisting of the critics of the ruling party of singapore. even the word 'ruling' seems out of context and poor as a label, since they have been the only party to rule the state.

i believe in a rigorous and active system, mostly in the form of an established and mature civil society, one that's conscious of what they are in and put through. the obstacles in our day-to-day labour are acceptedly the government's economic success so far, and a much-contested climate of fear. the extent of what they call youth apathy, which i dub youth ignorance for better accuracy, can be seen in how few of our youths actually know anything about sociology and political science. this is not helped by an ideology that has placed the sciences above the arts, a career in medicine, law, engineering and accountancy where the money is.

but an interesting viewpoint raised by Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, turned the tables on critics of the PAP. we push for what we term 'necessary change'. the government may find it hard to embrace changes and we find fault with them, but is the individual as readily open to changes? even if yes, will it be easy to adapt? she says: "singaporeans have to take ownership of their ability to cope with a reduced government presence in many facets of singapore life". in other words, from my understanding, the system and the success brought about by the PAP might just be the root of our growing consciousness. if in the first place without the work of the government, singaporeans may not even be sparked, or even knowledgeable enough, to care. will the people question as vigorously if there isnt a working, though flawed, democracy? i even dare say it is the PAP's system that gives birth to its critics; without it there would be less or none. why would u care about rights or freedom when u have nothing to compare with, no space to challenge, or even, know nothing? and in a tit-for-tat behaviour, will the statesmen do good if there's visibly no system to follow?

we are arguably the most successful post-colonial state, and this has happened under PAP's leadership. according to LKY himself, PAP has been decked out in full white since half a century ago to symbolise a clean government. and i think they have succeeded in that, made even more stunning relative to corruption around the world, especially in the region this tiny red dot is situated in.

and i loved this line: "in what would become the PAP's article of faith in years to come, LKY offered a glimpse of how his government would work: "there may be times when, in the interests of the whole community, we may have to take steps that are unpopular with a section of the community. on such occasions, remember that the principle which guides our actions is that the paramount interest of the whole community must prevail." "


inspired by Loh Chee Kong's The Next 50 Years, a feature on singapore's self-rule so far, which appeared in Weekend Today June 6-7 2009.