An insightful letter with the writer’s clearity of thought and maturity clearly shown. As a retiree with school going grandchildren, I am indeed impressed with the above effort.
Keep it up- you have the stuff to be a future leader.
Is Singapore soon to be like America – the way it was run to bankruptcy? I hope not- we are told that we have the best in Government and this may be a guarantee. History will soon tell the story.,and performance the of the new team.

FWIW, a mix of black and white results in grey, not brown.

In addition, while Bush may not be a popular choice now, truth be told, some of the policies and deregulation that led to the mess we have now was set in place during the Clinton’s (read: Democrat) term of Presidency.

Also, while the American public MAY have had enough of Bush, I think this vote was as much for Obama and what he stood for, and not just because he was not-Bush. Had it been a McCain v Clinton showdown, I do not believe the Democrat would have
a. won by such a big margin
b. seen such a big turn out, including the youth vote.

I always envy those who can write well… I wish i can too. ><

Anyway nicely written.

I think you ve strike the note with this paragraph.

“If Bush had not made a mess of everything, there would not be the opportunity to call for change. I mean, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Humans are simple creatures; if everything is going alright, kids get to go school, a few extra bucks in the wallet for the family holiday and meals outside, people will be content. But take those creature comforts away, and there will be hell to pay. Georgie literally yanked the carpet from under them and the roof from over them (sub-prime loans anyone?).”

Although i’m sure tat in SG the situation is not tat bad but sincerely i believe tat we r slowly being screwed.

- Rising Cost of Living
- Rising Tariffs
- Rising Public Transport Fee
- Unfair Transport Fee
- Overcrowding of Private Vehicles
- Many Many More

Anyway i wonder if we can write this article but seriously replace US Context to SG Context and still be safe from back lash. =(
Once again, nice article!!!

Sorry lah, there are no Obamas in Singapore. Even if there are, they won’t join politics.

Is change necessarily for the better? It is for the US because a suitable leader has emerged at a critical time. Can you find any such leader here? Hopefully in the future.

I also felt.
We can.we can change.it may be gradual change but slowly we will get there.
However,we must also be the agent of change.
contribute in whatever ways to help the opposition cause.
donation,volunteers hours etc.

Yes! We can!

Elections is only the beginning. To start calling Obama the Messiah when no one really knows what his “change” platform was is strange.

Ironically, Bush Jnr was elected on a “change” platform. His policy was to change everything that Bill Clinton did in his previous administration.

No more cosying up to Korea. Confront China instead of being friends. Forget about Kyoto treaty or the other missile defence treaties so long as its not in US interest.

He got re-elected as well… Bush’s former opponents were now Harvard professor Al Gore, and ex-war hero John Kerry. Intelligence and bravery is definitely not pre-requisites for the US top office so what makes Obama tick?

Iconic speeches are the pre-requisite for the US electorate. Obama’s citation of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” won it for him. Not his policies. Not his skin colour.

Americans don’t vote for the most intelligent or the most brave. They vote for those who most represent themselves. Those who share their dreams. Are Singaporeans a different lot? Maybe, maybe not.

The characterization of Obama as “black” is not the product of media sensationalism. “Black” in the US has historically been used to designate any person of black ancestry, including biracial and multiracial people. This has been referred to as “the one drop rule”. Also note that while Obama is technically biracial, he self-identifies as black.

The only insight that I gained from this letter was that it is sweeping and unsophisticated (too many parentheses, anyone?). Enough with the racial rhetoric already, enough with downplaying Obama’s remarkable efforts and abilities.

Like you, I am amazed at the progress that the United States has made in electing Obama to the highest office in the nation. I also agree that Bush’s downright incompetency has made it easier for him to get there.

However, you cannot discount McCain’s failings and the inexhaustible list of completely avoidable mistakes that he and his campaign had made that contributed to his loss. That, in itself, was a huge blow to his campaign and ultimately the reason for his loss. The way he proved so impulsive, his questionable judgment in selecting his VP candidate, the negative attacks, the infighting, and the list goes on and on.

Who is talking about Hillary here? Why are you comparing Obama to Hillary Clinton, and not his primary rival John McCain? John McCain also preached change, but nobody bought his self-styled ‘maverick’ sellings. Surely Sarah Palin was ‘change’, her comedy was change. Even Hillary would also have been symbolic of change, it was merely a toss-up between a woman and a black man for the Democratic ticket.

There is logic in this letter, but I am sure that your secondary school education would have taught you the importance of using more than one point to make a sound argument.

‘Love them or hate them, one must respect them for it is only in an apartheid that a man of minority can hope to be a leader of his nation.’

Question: What about the system of the United States qualifies as ‘apartheid’? Please explain.

“Obama’s remarkable efforts and abilities.”

Can I ask what are these….any specifics?

“10) lim on November 7th, 2008 6.06 pm
Can I ask what are these….any specifics?”

By some crude reliance on the POPULAR VOTE (EMPHASIS INNNNTENDED)given by the American people to the presidency of Obama.

Now, let me ask you, any specifics on OURS (EMPHASIS INNNNTENDED).

‘ “Obama’s remarkable efforts and abilities.”

Can I ask what are these….any specifics?’

To name a few: overcoming the odds of having less privilege than many others growing up – not well-off, being discriminated against for being biracial in 1960s Kansas, his parents’ separation and divorce – twice!, his drug problem, going from an unknown politician to Democratic nominee to President-elect

Of course, his famous oratorical abilities, his ability to put his family first, the sheer intelligence that so many politicians here in the US unfortunately seem to lack, the innate calm and dignity he possesses, the discipline and wonderful organization with which he ran his campaign, his expedient responses to the barrage of negative attacks he received from the GOP, and the type of unifying quality he has that is so, so rare.

The energy that reverberated across the nation and the world when he was declared President-elect was simply like nothing I have ever seen, (except maybe when the Red Sox won the World Series!) but, besides all the aforementioned examples, his ability to bring all these different peoples together is, at least to me, remarkable and astounding in itself.

Will we see in our lifetime an elected Prime Minister, who is intelligent, compassionate and loyal to Singapore, but is a minority of minorities? For instance, and without prejudice, a Muslim Indian single parent gay mother?

We can’t even elect our Prime Minister.

Fully agree with your comments on this article, Isabelle. Put my own thoughts better than I could’ve done.

Dear Kyle Leslie Sim,

Learning that you’re a polytechnic student, I am heartened to see the spiritedness and enthusiasm shown through your writing. However, that was only after learning that you’re a student. When i read your first paragraph, I was quickly reminded how some media analyst played down Obama’s Black identity by citing him as the first Bi-Racial President instead of an African-American President. Such downplaying simply speaks the language of the White Supremacists Movement (a.k.a Eugenics Movement) where it is impossible for a ‘genetically and culturally deficit’ heritage to cross the barrier of intelligence and civility… it must be the White part of his parentage that contributes to the intelligence and civility.

A stong statement of Obama’s Black identity was his intimate association with the Black Churches in America.

In his speech that I assumed you drew inspiration on, ‘Yes, We Can!’, Obama opened by citing the story of a centennial black female voter, a voter that was discriminated outrightly for her Gender and Skin Colour. He made no reservations to hide that racism was once prevalent and that he acknowledges the progress made over time to allow for a more matured American society to make his elections possible.

It is necessary to draw you to the point that the process of maturity was not by accident. If you managed to view the interview of Jesse Jackson, he reimnded of the toils of the forefathers in tearing the walls down to pave the way for this maturity to happen.

Without discounting the many members of the Civil Rights and Abolitionist movements from the white community that have shared their dreams. I’d like to highlight several persons from amongst the Black community that have laid the foundation despite all odds to make Obama’s candidature and subsequent election possible.

First: Frederick Douglass – 1817, born a slave, escaped and built a life as a free citizen, subsequently an advocate for the abolishment of unjust laws imposed on Women and Coloured people. He later became the first nominated Vice Presidential candidate (with a woman presidential candidate) to contest the elections.

W.E.B. Du Bois, the first Black man to earn a degree from Harvard University. He chartered the vision for the Education of Black People by advocating for the birth of the talented tenth from amongst the black people. A pool of black people who will challeged to be the best in every field, to be the role model, the line of intellectual defense, to be able to hold their heads up high yet feet grounded to the mission of an emancipated black society. Emancipation from both physical and symbolic violence.

Franklin Frazier, an intellectual who was sharp to detect the false consciousness of the Black Bougeoisie class and criticised heavily of his own community for the ‘Acting White’ attitude and repulsion from identifying with the slave heritage. He was heavily criticised for his blunt critique but subsequently acclaimed for bringing the movement back on track.

Henry Loius Gates Jr., He led the challenge against the Eugenics movement debunking both ideological and scientific claims.

James Cone. he led the challenge against the White Supremacist Church that denounced the right of Black People to even have a religion where he established the revised reading of the bible along a more humanistic reading.

Martin Luther King jr. … Obviously.

In my next post, I’ll elaborate on the women and modern day activists that has sustained the emancipation towards an equal, civic and civil citizenry.

Here, before even speaking of multiculturalism, do we even acknowledged that racism even exist in the history of modern Singapore?

of course racism exists! The question is it systematic? And whether people acknowledge that we are all racist to a certain extent? We can’t eradicate racism altogether, but at the same time, i think preventing a sincere dialogue on race also doesn’t help. The important thing is, we have to play a role in managing racism too. If someone behaves in a racist fashion, we have to shout him/her down. If not we are also accomplices to racism.

Why leave your identity as “A polytechnic student”? Putting an identity behind your words establishes sincerity and responsible communication. Unless you are under some kind of censorship or ban (like William Sealy Gosset).

Dear Kyle Leslie Sim,

I’m sorry, but your letter reads like another run-of-mill “oh, Obama is the greatest, the saviour, the black politician who beat the odds, his victory restores our faith in American democracy etc, etc” kind of delirious letter that you can read by the truckloads any day now in the internet.

I believe such letters are simplistic, unanalytic, unthinking, presumptious, parrot-like and boring. I’m sorry again but that’s exactly how I think they are.

I happen to be a sceptic of the Obama hype. Despite appearances, Obama is not that much different from any other American politician. I predict America will remain much the same and the world will remain much the same after next January.

Perhaps, may I be foolhardy enough to be one of the rare few to say that Bush was not the foolish, belligerent and blundering idiot that he was made out to be. His presidency turned out the way it did because of a unfortunate confluence of events and especially because of 911. I daresay that the world’s assessment of him will be quite different 4 years from today.

Dear Zefly,

How do we start to learn whether it is systematic if we do not even have space to discuss issues on race to even start the reconciliation process. The neverending conditioning using 1969 race riots Singapore is one that continuous and contagious towards sustaining distrust or wariness.

The abolitionist and civil liberty movements were not only focusing on race, but also on gender and class. I singled out racism in my post earlier because the author’s attempt (which I admit may be due to ignorance as the author is a student) to discredit Obama’s Black heritage by diversion to the colour Brown (which is truly a description of his his skin colour which is not as dark as compared to… _______ (fill in the blanks)) has a tinge of the spirit of racism .

The underlying attitude is really prejudice. Prejudice as defined by Gordon Allport “aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to that group.”

Prejudice can be expressed overtly through physical violence or symbolicly through discrimination and indiscriminate usage of mechanism for social control.

Let us take the race riot incident for example. We see a situation where self organised groups from both the Malay and Chinese communities were triggered by rumours into armed conflict. Yes it was a true historical account. For that it is an account that can be unreservedly mentioned. With that, the incident is repeated through in many ways multimedia. However, try find an episode where self organised groups from both the Malay and Chinese communities that have toiled together beyond the boudaries of race for a common good AND have received continuous and repeated mentioned via the multimedia. This causes an imbalance potrayal on both self organised communities of the tendency for violence which is in the spirit of racism as it is actually saying, ‘Without social control measures, violence will recur because they are Malays/Chinese.’ In actual fact, the race riots and the precedence to the race riots i.e. the rumours that have spread earlier was due to the insecurity and fear for survival of the two communities. This insecurity was a result of a vacuum in governance and public administration created by the departure of the British which created the scramble for power amongst other factors.

The broken record of race riots creates a condition where the fear of dialogue overwhelms the spirit of dialogue itself. As such it justifies that all dialogues must be sanctioned by authorities (I’m not refering to coffeeshop talk but Serious Self Organised Dialogues that discusses concrete issues that affects the citizens and of citizenry for example a discussion to disect the ethnic quota policy in HDB estates by its impact of the minorities on childcare and elderly care needs).

The issues of racism, of prejudice may be assessed superficially by outright remarks like namecalling… however, there are more complex aspects of racism, prejudice and discrimination.

I’ve learnt from an Indian friend that some Indian Foreign expatriates bring along with them more than their money to Singapore. They bring along the caste ideology, an ideology that have been long dead from amongst the 2nd and 3rd generation Indian Citizens here. Symbols of distinction to distinguish the Brahmins from the Dhalits are resurfacing again at worship grounds. Can the Indian community talk of the issue assertively and attempt to advocate for affirmative action to protect the cultural history of Indians who have toiled in this soil over several generations?

The Eugenics ideology that was imported here is another good example. It supports and reinforces some age old prejudices. Prejudices can easily be couched by an economics blanket. However if we look closely, it is quite blatant. Take the co-savings portion of the baby bonus scheme for instance. The matching grant dollar for dollar up to $XXXXX amount is clearly not for everyone. How many of our startup families with newborn babies, particularly those in blue collar job can afford to save even $XXX amount to take advantage of the dollar for dollar matching? Here is where there is a clear advantage for those who have excess disposable income. Save $1 and it’ll read $2. Why help the rich? Well… Eugenics again… parents of newborns who have excess disposable income are likely to have good careers and very likely due to good education. Encourage them to have more babies as their children will be more intelligent than children from average or poor parents (which is likely to have low education to start with). These children from poor parentage would not benefit even if they have the same amount of resources of the rich as they are genetically inferior.

By raising the above, will i be seen as creating tension between ethnic communities? I don’t think so as I am appealing to intelligent, civil and dedicated citizens here who shares the ideals of Nation Building that goes beyong racial harmony day.

The U.S. is blessed indeed by the forefathers of their nation that have chose to adopt and be steadfast to the philosophy of liberty. It was a philosophy that allows fronts for cooperation as well as fronts for disagreement all towards the greater good of according to every individual regardless of colour or creed their dignity.

However, we have yet to even raise why is it that when Singapore was part of Malaysia, we championed for a Malaysian Malaysia but when we are on our own the call for a Singaporean Singapore is shunned even after 43 years?

“Now, let me ask you, any specifics on OURS (EMPHASIS INNNNTENDED).”
OUr gahmen remarkable efforts and abilities:
- Increase GST by 40% which aggravate inflation, and still have the conscience able to sing the same tune and sleep peacefully at night
- Say more good years and golden periods then the billions of taxmoney in stupid investment go down in drain.
- Erect gantries and increase ERP entrance cost to help Chinatown business only to see business in ChinaTown so badly affected
- MSM censor Mee Siam Mai Hum, and present rhetoric while other countries sank.
- Kangaroo judges can still preside in the kangaroo court when their integrity call into question.
- Government has no control and accountability over GIC and Temasek Holding where tax money go into them. World-class gov indeed !
- Remarkably increase electricity hike to 22% and says they can’t help it.
- Pay millions as salary and yet can quote only CAVEAT EMPTOR
- Pay millions as salary to play tachi and blame game.
- Pay millions as salary to move on.
- Blame little people when thing goes wrong, give themselve full credit when thing goes right.
etc

Surely you can think of more examples of our gahmen’s remarkable efforts and abilities that are extraordinarily out of this world.

@lifeobzervr

you didn’t mention Malcom X!

and to the author, I’m sorry. What I’ve read again is just a repetition of the change rhetoric without any serious discussion.

“Without Osama, Obama would not have won. Everything happens for a reason, and maybe that was why September 11 happened – to set the ground work for change, and if you think about it, that was when the war on/of terror began and heralded the end of Bush.”

That is really really really problematic. Seems to smack of predestination as the answer for everything while whitewashing all the silly things that Bush has done over the last 8 years. And if you insist on this point, I could point to you that there’s many ex soldiers that are willing the war in Iraq to carry on.

If you would want a specific historical point, why not put the financial meltdown?

Thanks Laserpointer for that added point. Yes, to a certain extent Malcolm X did contribute to the Civil Rights movement after his about turn in his life’s philosophy which was triggered from the meeting with Martin Luther King Jr.

After his orientation change, He did extensive repair work denouncing his own earlier promotion of Black Power movement which was his retaliation to the White Supremacist hegemony.

I would regard him more of an activist rather than a social philosopher or public intellectual. No doubt, even as an activist he has been accorded the status in American History as someone who have impacted the American Society and Culture. There are many many more activists both in the forefront and grassroots that have held a special place in the Emancipation of the Blacks, Women and Coloured People in America. Of course today.., the civil rights movement is still pressing on to challenge prejudices against religion and sexual orientation.

Yes, we need a change of the LEE Regime. It’s time for a new wave of obama change: To lead the country and to inspire the people to worthy cause. We are currently not very inspired by our leaders. We pay them millions and they gave us peanuts. Every move is slow and passive to our reaction of this falling economy. Where are we now, nobody knows. How much are we worth? Maybe we Singapore are not worth a peanut. Currently we are sitting on most paper loss by our GIC and Temasek. All thanks to them. If we want change, then we must vote for a change. Remember the power goes to the ordinary Singaporean. Let’s fire our incompetent leaders.

Do they have better English teachers nowadays? I see that we have some excellent writers here and they are only 17-18 years old! A revolution must be going on in our English lessons back home.

Keep it up!!!

Like many, I am sceptical of the Obama “Change” election slogan. Bush used it and in Australia here, the current govt led by Mr Kevin Rudd used the same model of change to campaign during election and won based on a low-taxes /high welfare model. Each party while campaigning promised a whole slew of goodies to attract votes. It is like a beauty peageant but only this time round, the winner has to deliver or else.

Guess what? Now, the people wanted Rudd to be out asap as they said that he screwed up. Poor Rudd only got elected not more than 12 months ago. During his short reign, the Aussie dollar plunged 30% and interest rate skyrockted to 7.5%. It has now being adjusted to no more than 5% due to the financial crisis. Most of what he promised he also failed to deliver due to a serious lack of budget and flawed administration. For example, he promised that extra rail lines will be laid in Western Sydney but the project was scrapped due to a lack of funds. The project would have cost around 5 billion dollars. They also have to sell part of the power stations to the private sector to generate an income of $5-6 billion for the govt coffers. More welfare benefits like the $50 a month transport fare subsidy for 600,000 school going chidlren may also be scrapped generating an extra $500 million savings for the govt.

So Obama needs to walk the talk or else the sceptics like you and me will start to slay him mercilessly.

I am heartened to read all the above comments. TOC can really bridged the young and the retireees – it is an all inclusive forum.
My regret is Hiliary Clinton – there are just too many Democrats who dislike her. She will make a great and woman President; Obama is young and can be the next if history can change. A Hiliary-Obama ticket would be the once in a life historical setting dream team – a white woman President and a mixed (black-white) VP. That is wishful thinking now however.

As for Singapore going the American way of bankruptcy – unlikely, unless Temasek cannot still learn from the failures of the USA Micropolis’ investment to Australia’s ABC! and unless all of GIC’s investments in Citibank and UBS go to nought (it has already lost about 60% in investment value)
However there is one dangerous trend of Singapore going the western example- western CEOs are all over our places; rumours are that we may even get our next one in SIA after DBS, etc.. The downfall of America is in part caused by their greedy CEOs. The Singapore Government continue to love all things western when it comes to staffing- let us hope that they learn and not flood our shores with ang mos from lawyers to out of job bankers. Singapore has a good social responsibility and work ethic reputation to protect, and the last thing the citizens want to see are ang mos coming in with empty suitcases and leaving with million dollars of citizen’s hard earned cash given away easily from the one sided contract – the first expat DBS CEO ( a retired American Banker) comes to mind, and just what has he contributed. The subsequent POSB money going over with merger with DBS is still a painful memory to the common citizens. Just do not understand the need to go on white ego trips on the part of the policy makers when it is so clear to citizens. The policy makers create the problems themselves for Singapore! When will they ever learn – other than from past and present financial losses in foreign investments in USA , NZ and Australia.
To avoid bankruptcy, Singapore must not let the greedy mentality adulterate its decision makers. Already complacency in the civil service is setting in – how can Mas Selamat happen? And there is still no news on Mas Selamat despite the nation hunt and vast resources spent.

As for the Obama of Singapore – it may be another 30 years before an independent and family unrelated individual become the real new PM (not a seat warmer please).
Enough said! Citizens are nice people but not born yesterday please, please.

FFH – (last letter is Hope… guess what FF means..?)

The system here is so rigged, anyone with an edge towards Obama-style Changes will be blunted in half a heartbeat…

Indonesia black magic… Brain washing mentra … ‘yes we can” , if you say it long enough you would belive it too. well wriiten , i too envy good writers.

First of all, the man is a black man.. brown refers to Hispanics and Indians in America, Please get your terms right.
just like in Singapore, you always adopt the ethnicity of your father. Having said that, he has always maintained that his campaign was never about race. It was an uplifting message about hope and empowering the people.

Second, to day that he won only because of the failed policies of the bush administration, is just ignorant. The man ran a almost perfect campaign, mobilizing the youth and getting the elderly to vote.
Your argument that Hillary would have won if not for Bush holds no water. Both were heavily critical of the Bush administration. In fact i would even say that Hillary lasted so long only because of the fact that she was white, and had the white working class (Redneck) vote on her side.,

The only gaffe that i can remember him making was when he made the ‘they cling to guns or religion’ comment. While it did help that the bush administration did such a wonderful job, you cannot fault the way Obama went about his campaign with dignity and respect.

24) seaporter on November 8th, 2008 2.58 am
Where are we now, nobody knows. How much are we worth? Maybe we Singapore are not worth a peanut. Currently we are sitting on most paper loss by our GIC and Temasek. All thanks to them. If we want change, then we must vote for a change. Remember the power goes to the ordinary Singaporean.

In time to come, we singaporeans may be in the hand of foreigners to control, who knows the senile one may be so selfish that he sold the whole nation and its people away for the sake of getting more billions for his family.

Dear Kyle,

In all fairness Bush was not entirely to blame for the Republican defeat. I believe that the incumbent party has an inherent disadvantage because most grievances and “failings” will be attributed to them. In fact, the roots of the terrorist problem and the sub-prime crisis originated way before the Bush era. Bush bore the brunt of these problems. While it is true that he had his fair share of management fiascos, I think for a large part he had to maintain a defensive posture and react to the culmination of these problems. I believe these problems were not nipped in the bud during the Clinton administration, and rather, were allowed to fester.

Us commentators always have the benefit of hindsight. The verdict is still out on Obama.

“Perhaps, may I be foolhardy enough to be one of the rare few to say that Bush was not the foolish, belligerent and blundering idiot that he was made out to be. His presidency turned out the way it did because of a unfortunate confluence of events and especially because of 911. I daresay that the world’s assessment of him will be quite different 4 years from today.” – 19) smallvoice585

I read quite a bit about the Bush Administration last few years largely because I was mad at the guy. Balancing the sources, and taking from a more objective account of the Bush Administration by Scott McClellan, Bush is definitely not stupid, not in the ‘I’m an idiot’ sense, and he did have this (misguided) good intention that he could bring great change to Iraq. But he is largely misled by the people around him, people who make such astounding blunders, in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and deregulating the market to the extent that (while the financial crisis had its roots in the 1980s with Reaganomics) it led to the collaspe of Wall Street as we know today. The people of Irag did not become insurgents overnight because of the foreign occupation, but when it dawned on them that the Americans were more interested in securing the pipelines and the oil wells than in rebuilding the basic infrastructure.

Katrina was a natural disaster that no one could have avoided, but the fallout and mishandling was human ineptness. Bush appointed Michael Brown, whose previous credentials was as overseer of horse trial judges and stewards for the Arabian Horse Association, had zero experience in disaster management. The hurricane didn’t cause the the levees to break, but were left to rot for the longest time under Bush’s watch, despite persistent warnings that they would not hold the floodwaters back.

When Bush took over the presidency in 2000, Clinton and the CIA had warned him that the biggest security threat was Al Qaeda. There were a lot more warnings days prior to the attack but Bush ignored them.

Perhaps ten years later, we may see the Middle East turning into a democratic region and somehow someone would attribute it to Bush sowing the seeds by marching into Iraq. Maybe he is God’s unwitting tool to bring ‘freedom’ to the Middle East. But arguing therefore that the results therefore makes him a good and even farsighted president is like saying Hitler should be credited for the founding of Israel because the Holocaust indirectly led to the (re)cohesion of the Jews.

Zefly is right, if we take smallvoice’s point, then there’s really no need to elect a president, or the parliament.

Young Man, given that you are only a Poltytechnic Student, this is an excellent article worthy of the present Singapore’s Government Officials including the Cabinet.

By the way, Morgan Freeman was not the President in the movie Independence Day, it was Bill Pullman, Freeman acted in another movie “Deep Impact” as The US President.

Keep up the great work……

‘Young Man, given that you are only a Poltytechnic Student, this is an excellent article worthy of the present Singapore’s Government Officials including the Cabinet.’

Is this a compliment?

The effects of Bush incompetency is far beyond the above. He basically perpetuated the principle of “might makes right”. So long as its not in America’s interest (or at least where in his view, its not), agreements will be ditched. The Georgian campaign was a retort by Putin to show Bush that if you can do it, I can too. That’s incredibly dangerous.

His blunders over North Korea, Iran, pushing them and others towards nuclear power as the only means to deter large power aggression is indeed a “genius”, not that it wasn’t predicted. Those failures means the US has to maintain high levels of military spending which the US can now ill afford, yet must continue to spend. Ironic when in contrast, Clinton didn’t need as much and yet most people globally would have felt much safer in his tenure.

Obama inherits these broken pieces and to expect him to mend Bush Jnr’s elephant in the china shop mess into a Clinton era world is living in cloud cuckoo land. I don’t have such expectations.

One can hope Iraq ends up like Vietnam, a country that basically picked up its pieces without impacting on the wider region. Yet Iraq, unlike Vietnam, was a significant part of the Muslim world and the implications of foreign policy blunders in Iraq has far more repercussions and impacts on people’s mindset in that region than Vietnam will ever have.

I hope for Bush Jnr’s sake, that Obama succeeds in bringing back prosperity to America. Bush’s presidency would hence be only a blip. Otherwise, historians would point to Bush as the starting point of the fall of the US empire…. a bit kwa zhang but that’s literary license.

36) lim, adding to your post

I guess Tolstoy is right, and Marx is half-right. Marx is right that history occurs dialectically. And i tend to believe Tolstoy who says that historical events are more caused by the collective consciousness of people rather than any individuals. Obama is a representation of the collective will of most of the American people at a time where the age of unfettered capitalism is coming to an end. Seen in this light, Bush Jr had to happen. Marx is of course wrong that the end result is communism.

But i do believe that something good will come out of everything that’s happening now. Hopefully we will eventually work towards a fairer, more humane, less exploitative world economy. Twenty years ago, nobody would have predicted the rise of China and India. Many developing nations are starting to assert themselves and saying to the G-8 (or 7?) nations, enough of exploiting us.

Considering the fact that Muslim fundamentalism didn’t happen overnight but had its roots when the winners of WW1 carved up the Middle East without regards to the will of the people, it also means that a fairer more multilateral world would reduce the threat of fundamentalism that the hawks in the Bush Administration could not.

Obama, while he may not deliver on his promise, is nonetheless a symbol for these changing times.

Many naysayers can draw parallels to many instances in the past where the world looks like it is on the edge of a golden age but ‘nothing changes’. “look at the 60s! What had the hippie movement achieved? What had Martin Luther King achieved? The blacks are still among the poorest people in USA.”

I think this is the classic ‘glass is half empty’ mentality vs “the glass is half-full.”

If you look at human history in general, despite the wars, violence, mistakes stupidity, false starts etc… we are making progress on all fronts, from how we think to how we organise society, to more people thinking that we should work towards a better world.

What has this got to do with change in Singapore? Everything, really.

Because you can’t change anything unless you believe the goal is attainable. Unless you believe there is something better than what we have now.

Personally, one of the failures of LKY, (and the PAP in general) is this. Compare LKY’s speeches during the 50s and now. His speech then was full of hope. That was what rallied people to him. Now? It’s all fear-based. Fear that we will be ruined. Fear that we will end up as maids in Indonesia. I’m giving him a benefit of a doubt and say that he isn’t saying this to ‘control’ us; he definitely loves Singapore in his own way. So he’s expressing a genuine feeling of fear for the people he had (in his mind) brought so far.

And because his is such an influential voice, you get so many of us who thinks like that too. We live in fear, but it’s more than just the fear of the government. It’s fear of change. It’s the fear that the vision of a more equal and just society is a mere illusion.

The first step towards change, is to change how you think.

It’s very naive right? Some of you might laugh. But the British were also laughing when a little brown man in white dhoti told them “Pharoh! Let my people go!”

Oh wait. That was Moses..

37) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on November 8th, 2008 3.40 pm
Because you can’t change anything unless you believe the goal is attainable. Unless you believe there is something better than what we have now.

We are not suppose to believe anything other than the believe of LKY, because by believing what you people believe, change will take shape and LKY and his party fear to have this change to take place.

Zefly:

I think TOC will organise more of such HLP protests so it is good to attend if you are able to.

I can’t as I am abroad in Sydney but my heart is with you guys!

Oh no worries gilbert,

We’ll bring along a big screen and hook it up to a laptop with Skype. You can’t escape!
:)

@Zefly

fundamentalism, understood correctly, is a reorientation to a strict adherence to a set of basic principles, in lay words, strict following of the doctrinal teachings.

I oppose to your use of fundamentalism as a threat, there are christian fundamentalism and other forms and so on. It doesn’t make it more clear why muslim fundamentalism should be a threat, and not other religions.

The key of which i think you’re seeking is deeply linked to terrorism, which is complex and has roots in social exclusion and historical changes over the last century. Religion itself does not account solely for why people would participate in violence. Where appropriate, it is used as a legitimizing tool for engaging in terror or violence events. This whole issue is complex.

Other than that, i pretty much agree with what your said.

In another words, some fundamentalists are terrorists. Yet at the same time, such strict adherence also leads to discrimination. Where should the line be drawn to tell fundamentalists to stop discriminating? Should we welcome any form of religious doctrine that support discrimination?

Hi Laserpointer,

Apologies if the points weren’t made clear. In the need for brevity, I must’ve unwittingly created the perception that ONLY muslim fundamentalism is a threat. You are right to say that all forms of fundamentalism are dangerous, and the factors contributing to them are complex. I was using the middle east situation because it is current. :) I truly believe that middle east, and the african continent would be much less volatile places fifty years from now, even though it doesn’t look so now. A hundred years ago, nobody could have imagined the end of collonialism (in the classic sense), but it did.

Donaldson,
Your qn very difficult to answer. No fundamentalists would ever say they are. That’s why it’s so exasperating to even knock some level of common sense, or even get them to see other ‘truths’ other than theirs are valid. Fundies don’t necessary have to be violent, but sometimes they make you want to be violent talking to them lol. I think if there’s one thing the state does right, it is to disallow hate speech and stuff like that, while at the same time getting the religious establishment to monitor and define what is ‘orthodox’ and what is not. I think every society will have its share of fundies, religious or non-religious, and the only way is to keep the numbers small, since it would be undemocratic and against human rights to exile them to some faraway land where they can fight among themselves whose God is better.

If there’s one thing very heartening in this US elections, it is that it is also the voice of sane people telling the extreme religious right they’ve had enough of them getting involved in politics. (Although American liberals would disagree, because Calfornians voted for a ban on same-sex marriage on the same day they voted for Obama… but that’s another topic altogether)

Eh….one mistake. Morgan Freeman wasn’t the president in independence day….it was Bill Pullman. Morgan Freeman was the president in Deep Impact. Gosh…do your research before writing this article please….

To be the man…..whooooo you gotta beat the man.

Hi Zefly, thanks for your comments.

I think MM is “passe” in the context of Singapore’s future. I think he fully deserves credit for getting Singapore to where it is right now but the future direction will no longer be on his shoulders or that of his original team. That’s a fact of life.

There is an element of danger to focus too much on his tenure. What he did was in the circumstance of his time. China took a long while to get over Mao, more than 2 decades. I hope Singapore doesn’t need that long to progress beyond MM.

Today’s world requires today’s leaders. The future direction requires leaders with vision. I’m sure in typical MM efficiency, there are already lots of plans marked out on how things will go in certain sectors. But overall, how the vision of Singapore could pan out is still very much undecided.

@Zefly and Donaldson

Hmm, what I was arguing was the opposite actually. Must be brevity problem again!

I was actually meaning to say that fundamentalism itself, on the logic of strict adherence to the scripture does not constitute a threat in the global sense. If we follow that fundamentalism is a particular intepretation of the doctrine, then it wouldn’t be too hard to place it as a certain form of religious intepretation that innately do not constitute “a threat”.

The problem is that fundamentalism are by most part an ideological response to modernity, which is why most of the time they are viewed as anti-modernization, hence a threat. The other thing is, if we take the view that fundamentalism is essentially dangerous, it obscured religious practices and beliefs on a collective level.

What i’m saying here is a “fundamental” understanding of a doctrine does not constitute the perceived danger we see, but rather that the collective response of “fundamentalism” are so complex and it is the “fundamentalist”, not the problem with the religion that is problematic. I hope i didnt construe your points to anyway they shouldn’t be.

and yes donaldson, i think it can be argued that all forms of religious beliefs are discriminatory to a certain extent, why should “fundamentalism” be viewed in a different light? If the perceived threat here is that they would bond together and reject people different from them, well, it is very hard to attribute the “rejection” to just religion alone. Beliefs are by and large shaped by the people who subscribed to them, if we just understand the phenomenon of “fundamentalism” from the point of its religious text, then it kind of hides the fact that it tends to happen that only certain groups of people practise that.

If I follow you correct, then i would presume that the same rules should apply. A fair place, equal for all would have less chance of a breeding grounds for such radical ideologies.

Laserpointer,

Have to say that I’m a bit confused about your points. I think the the basic problem might be how we define ‘fundamentalism’. And as we all agree, it is very a complex issue. How to start?

I always believe that the saying “the devil can quote the Scriptures for his own ends’ rings true when it comes to fundamentalism. (let’s just stick to religious fundamentalism for the time being)

Religion, from an academic perspective, is neither right nor wrong. Some people hear God’s (‘God” in its neutral term… call it Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Nirvana, krishna, the Void, the Force what-have-you-not) words and start feeding the poor. Others hear God’s words and start a bloody Crusade. (Ok, of course religion is also very often a justification, and not the cause of)

On the same note, someone, or a group of people might follow the Scriptures (or some other religious doctrine) faithfully and literally, like, say, live like how the Hebrews lived during Moses’ time. (no TV, no techonology).. and they pose no threat to society whatever-so. (like the film The Village) Conversely, another group might follow the same Scriptures and become like, you know, the 20% of the religious right-wing in America who disguise bigotry and intolerance with the bible, AND want to turn a secular democracy into a theocracy – ie, imposing their will on a large number of people who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

So to pin the blame on the Bible or the Koran or the Dharma just misses the point. Fundamentalists will always find a reason or doctrine to justify their actions.

“The other thing is, if we take the view that fundamentalism is essentially dangerous, it obscured religious practices and beliefs on a collective level.”

You have to elaborate further.

Zefly, laserpointer:

Perhaps it is not fundamentalism, but radicalism or extremism that is essentially dangerous? These are quintessentially different terms.

I think it is correct to say that all religious radicals and extremists are, or at least see themselves as, fundamentalists – but many do distort the words or essence of their religion’s teachings.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, usually would not label themselves extremists or radicals, in fact, I would argue that many do not condone their ideas or methods of conveying them. I see fundamentalists as people who subscribe and follow extremely closely to what they believe in, they are for the most part also highly conservative.

There is a fine line to be drawn especially in the post 9/11 era, and I am sure that there are more than a few fundamentalists out there who are offended at the negativity that the term carries today.

Isabelle, Zefly

Think the issue here is partly a definition problem as well as me not making myself clear earlier on. Fundamentalism, within a religious context, can be understood as “returning to the basics”, like following the doctrine strictly etc. I think the issue here is why are people doing so, if we follow the modernity logic, then it can be seen as a response to globalization and modernization ( I’m making things brief here, of course there are other factors).

I’m saying that it is the political that we should be concern with, like why do certain groups of people in different parts of the world resort to violence, why these groups not others, why in particular this period of time etc. I’m saying too that viewed in this manner, there is nothing wrong with taking a fundamental viewpoint on his/her religion, in fact there’s nothing different from reading it in a more liberal way etc, the same way that you both have argued. The same way we don’t see conservatism as dangerous, why should we view fundamentalism as dangerous (although radicalism and extremism is another issue together).

Why in which certain forms of “fundamentalism” takes on a radical or extremist turn are political in nature. This is regarding my point earlier on “religion” on a “collective”. It is not a matter of which religion people believe in that creates the problem, but why these people believe in that particular form of religious belief that is more radicial and extreme is one that begs the question.

In the case of the Black Church, it was the push towards the fundamental ethical teachings of the Christ that is to emancipate the marginalised and to speak truth to power that bought them an extra mile forward in their struggle to gain footing as an equal in the land of dreams.

laserpointer:

‘It is not a matter of which religion people believe in that creates the problem, but why these people believe in that particular form of religious belief that is more radicial and extreme is one that begs the question.’

I must say that I am rather confused about the point that you are trying to make, and it seems like we are going in two separate directions here – I do not think that any of us were arguing that the problem is caused by beliefs in different religions, merely by a distortion of religious doctrine.

/// 19) smallvoice585 on November 7th, 2008 11.53 pm
Dear Kyle Leslie Sim,
I’m sorry, but your letter reads like another run-of-mill “oh, Obama is the greatest, the saviour, the black politician who beat the odds, his victory restores our faith in American democracy etc, etc” kind of delirious letter that you can read by the truckloads any day now in the internet. ///

smallvoice – I think you misread Kyle completely. Read his piece again. He’s under no illusion that Obama is the greatest. In fact, he’s saying that Obama won because Bush screwed up royally. Read again.

@Isabelle

Hmm, actually what i wrote in the second part wasn’t directly addressing you, it was more of a case of ‘my opinions’.

As for the distortion of religious doctrine part, I would believe that all religious practices are in some way or another, variations from the doctrine. That is all.

I think we have come half-circle today with the inauguration of Obama.

There was a conference in my school with the editors of WSJA. In his closing remarks, Mr Costas Paris said, ‘if you want freedom, you, as the voters and citizens of singapore must fight for it.’

I must admit that the discussion thread at some parts was beyond my comprehension(mainly the information overload) but am very heartened to see that in this virtual world, exists fellow Singaporeans who feel strongly about how they want this country to be run.

What is needed now, are people who believe in not just talking, but taking action, this community in cyper space has to move into real space to express these thoughts and feelings over to the people who matter.

People out there need to be convinced that change must come. It is our jobs as friends, neighbours and fellow Singaporeans to show them what needs to be done.

I never thought i would see the day a black man would be in the white house, just like how most of us believe that we will never see a credible and organized opposition rise to take power in this fair nation of ours.