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
Join the opposition and let them appoint you as one of the minister.