17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012
Saturday, 29 August 2015
Friday, 28 August 2015
OVERTURNING THE GENERAL ELECTION TORTOISE
AND LOOKING AT ITS HIDDEN UNDERBELLY
The Common View
The conventional way of looking at a general election is to see it as a nation's periodic exercise in renewing its political leadership. More pertinently, it is perceived to be a battle for votes by politicians representing different political beliefs and philosophies, with the general public acting as a judge and arbiter deciding whether the country should continue with PAP's proven formula or break with tradition by opting for change. Foremost on the voters' minds would be the calibre of the individual candidates, their credibility, their record, their beliefs, their moral standing and the strength of their respective parties. This common view puts the politicians and their parties in the spotlight and sees their qualities determining the outcome of the general election.
The Deeper View
The truth is really quite different. The vast majority of voters are ill-informed, lack passion or intellectual vigour to properly judge the merits of the candidates and what they stand for in relation to the issues of the day, the intricacies of which they could hardly understand. What they can hope for is a very simplified and superficial interpretation of political problems, though inconsistently presented, by various political contestants and try to predict their impact on their daily lives. However, the democratic act of voting places a necessarily heavy burden on the people to make a judgement that they are barely qualified to make. This is the Achilles heel of democracy, but there is no immediate or foreseeable remedy for it.
As each voter puts a cross on the ballot paper on September 11, each thinks that he is choosing a candidate or party. Yet, the placement of the cross will say more about the voter himself than about the political players. That's because he has more self-knowledge than knowledge about politics and politicians.
Subconsciously to him, the act of voting is an act of making a statement about his self-confidence as an actively participating member of the citizenry. It all boils down to this: is he choosing politicians whom he thinks are capable of making all the important decisions for him; or is he choosing politicians as intellectual equals who truly listen to him and his fellow citizens, respond to feedback, are ready to discuss and conciliate different viewpoints and accurately represent these different viewpoints in parliamentary discussions? In short, does the voter defer and surrender his political rights to political experts of his choosing because of his own political incompetence; or does he want to engage fully in his role as a necessary participant in the political life of his nation by choosing a representative partner to render such participation viable and practical?
If his confidence is low, he will choose the party that seeks a strong mandate from him to make all the right decisions for him and his country. If his confidence is high, he may want to elect other parties who promise more consultation and conversations and make decisions in a more circumspect and tentative manner. The outcome of the election is not so much a statement about the strength of the PAP or the state of opposition politics, but rather about the degree of political maturity of Singaporeans.
All the campaigning, the issues, the words, the sounds and the fury are actually just some rituals of an election ceremony. In the end, these do not matter very much because it is not the politicians and their parties that are being tested; it is us as a society that is being examined.
AND LOOKING AT ITS HIDDEN UNDERBELLY
The Common View
The conventional way of looking at a general election is to see it as a nation's periodic exercise in renewing its political leadership. More pertinently, it is perceived to be a battle for votes by politicians representing different political beliefs and philosophies, with the general public acting as a judge and arbiter deciding whether the country should continue with PAP's proven formula or break with tradition by opting for change. Foremost on the voters' minds would be the calibre of the individual candidates, their credibility, their record, their beliefs, their moral standing and the strength of their respective parties. This common view puts the politicians and their parties in the spotlight and sees their qualities determining the outcome of the general election.
The Deeper View
The truth is really quite different. The vast majority of voters are ill-informed, lack passion or intellectual vigour to properly judge the merits of the candidates and what they stand for in relation to the issues of the day, the intricacies of which they could hardly understand. What they can hope for is a very simplified and superficial interpretation of political problems, though inconsistently presented, by various political contestants and try to predict their impact on their daily lives. However, the democratic act of voting places a necessarily heavy burden on the people to make a judgement that they are barely qualified to make. This is the Achilles heel of democracy, but there is no immediate or foreseeable remedy for it.
As each voter puts a cross on the ballot paper on September 11, each thinks that he is choosing a candidate or party. Yet, the placement of the cross will say more about the voter himself than about the political players. That's because he has more self-knowledge than knowledge about politics and politicians.
Subconsciously to him, the act of voting is an act of making a statement about his self-confidence as an actively participating member of the citizenry. It all boils down to this: is he choosing politicians whom he thinks are capable of making all the important decisions for him; or is he choosing politicians as intellectual equals who truly listen to him and his fellow citizens, respond to feedback, are ready to discuss and conciliate different viewpoints and accurately represent these different viewpoints in parliamentary discussions? In short, does the voter defer and surrender his political rights to political experts of his choosing because of his own political incompetence; or does he want to engage fully in his role as a necessary participant in the political life of his nation by choosing a representative partner to render such participation viable and practical?
If his confidence is low, he will choose the party that seeks a strong mandate from him to make all the right decisions for him and his country. If his confidence is high, he may want to elect other parties who promise more consultation and conversations and make decisions in a more circumspect and tentative manner. The outcome of the election is not so much a statement about the strength of the PAP or the state of opposition politics, but rather about the degree of political maturity of Singaporeans.
All the campaigning, the issues, the words, the sounds and the fury are actually just some rituals of an election ceremony. In the end, these do not matter very much because it is not the politicians and their parties that are being tested; it is us as a society that is being examined.
Tuesday, 18 August 2015
RECONSTRUCTING SINGAPORE'S GENERAL ELECTIONS 2015
VOTING FOR CREDIBILITY AND PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITY
Our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, has accurately identified the 3 main challenges Singapore will face over the next 50 years.
1. How can we boost our productivity to continue our economic growth?
2. How do we overcome the demographic problems of an aging population and a low fertility rate?
3. How can we preserve our national identity and our sense of belonging?
If the coming General Elections is like an examination for the various political parties, let these be the important examination questions. This will get our politicians thinking hard about our country's problems rather than indulging in undesirable mud-slinging and character assassinations.
For us voters, let's do something unusual this year. Let's put aside our old loyalties and deep prejudices, our cynical distrust, our fickle vulnerability to favors, our selfish short-term considerations, our sense of entitlement and our petty tribal rivalries. Instead, let's judge the political competitors, fairly and objectively, on their credibility and potential ability to solve our present and future problems and give our votes to the deserving ones.
So, in a nutshell, if the forthcoming General Elections is an exam about solving national problems, the politicians are the students taking the exam; the political parties are the different schools that taught them; and the voters are the neutral invigilators and markers of the papers. Now, let the exam begin!
VOTING FOR CREDIBILITY AND PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITY
Our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, has accurately identified the 3 main challenges Singapore will face over the next 50 years.
1. How can we boost our productivity to continue our economic growth?
2. How do we overcome the demographic problems of an aging population and a low fertility rate?
3. How can we preserve our national identity and our sense of belonging?
If the coming General Elections is like an examination for the various political parties, let these be the important examination questions. This will get our politicians thinking hard about our country's problems rather than indulging in undesirable mud-slinging and character assassinations.
For us voters, let's do something unusual this year. Let's put aside our old loyalties and deep prejudices, our cynical distrust, our fickle vulnerability to favors, our selfish short-term considerations, our sense of entitlement and our petty tribal rivalries. Instead, let's judge the political competitors, fairly and objectively, on their credibility and potential ability to solve our present and future problems and give our votes to the deserving ones.
So, in a nutshell, if the forthcoming General Elections is an exam about solving national problems, the politicians are the students taking the exam; the political parties are the different schools that taught them; and the voters are the neutral invigilators and markers of the papers. Now, let the exam begin!
Thursday, 16 July 2015
Thursday, 9 July 2015
SALUTING MR PANEERSELVAM
This is inspired by the story of an honest van driver in Singapore. Read at http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/van-driver-owns-up-to-hitting-car
Panneerselvam Kulothungan,
You are honesty's new slogan.
In Singapore, you're quite a stir.
So, this is my tribute to you, Sir.
Yes, your accident was a fact,
But none caught you in the act.
For an hour you patiently waited
With twice a confession drafted.
Keen to ease the victim's worry,
Back you went to say you're sorry.
So the reward for your honesty,
Is your freedom from liability.
So, the point that you make
Is never run from a mistake.
How you would prioritize
Is admit, rectify, then apologize.
Such a message of sincerity
Transcends status and seniority;
Neither history nor geography
Can limit your great philosophy.
This is inspired by the story of an honest van driver in Singapore. Read at http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/van-driver-owns-up-to-hitting-car
You are honesty's new slogan.
In Singapore, you're quite a stir.
So, this is my tribute to you, Sir.
Yes, your accident was a fact,
But none caught you in the act.
For an hour you patiently waited
With twice a confession drafted.
Keen to ease the victim's worry,
Back you went to say you're sorry.
So the reward for your honesty,
Is your freedom from liability.
So, the point that you make
Is never run from a mistake.
How you would prioritize
Is admit, rectify, then apologize.
Such a message of sincerity
Transcends status and seniority;
Neither history nor geography
Can limit your great philosophy.
Thursday, 2 July 2015
A SAD DOG THAT DOESN'T BARK
Our sad dog just doesn't bark,
Not even a whimper to hark.
Though never noisy like a lark,
He's so quiet, well off the mark.
An absence of a voice so stark,
Like a throat bitten by a shark.
Or is he hoarse from overbark?
Why so, I'm totally in the dark.
If life's been a walk in the park,
And contentment at benchmark,
Why the lacking in lively spark,
Having only silence for bulwark?
Our sad dog just doesn't bark,
Not even a whimper to hark.
Though never noisy like a lark,
He's so quiet, well off the mark.
An absence of a voice so stark,
Like a throat bitten by a shark.
Or is he hoarse from overbark?
Why so, I'm totally in the dark.
If life's been a walk in the park,
And contentment at benchmark,
Why the lacking in lively spark,
Having only silence for bulwark?
Sunday, 28 June 2015
THE "FIGHT OF THE CENTURY" - A REVIEW
Having watched the 2 May 2015 fight in its entirety, it is easy to come to a firm conclusion that the "Fight Of The Century" is actually "The Swindle Of The Century".
Just watch it here:
We can come to 3 conclusions:
(1) Swindle No. 1
Clearly contrary to the official result, Mayweather did not win the fight. In fact, Pacquiao was much more aggressive, landing more and landing harder punches and was obviously inferior only in Round 11. Throughout most of the match, Mayweather was looking afraid, moving backwards, running away and throwing occasional light jabs just to keep Pacquiao away from him; and when he failed, he would be backing up against the ropes, holding up both his gloves to protect his face or clinch and hold Pacquiao to stop the latter's punches. He made a poor imitation of Ali (vs Foreman) by repeatedly shaking his head to say that Pacquiao's punches did not hurt him. It was almost comical to see what's happening on the screen and listening to what the 2 glaringly prejudiced commentators were saying about Mayweather being totally dominant or holding a masterclass in boxing. The sights and the sounds were so at odds that one wonders whether we were watching the same boxing match in the same universe. Clearly, someone thought that the spectator is an idiot who can be influenced into thinking that their eyes were deceiving them. All Mayweather did convincingly was to act after the match as though he had won and pose boastfully. If we looked at Pacquiao's reaction when he raised both arms almost immediately after the last punch was thrown, it was a much more natural and spontaneous reaction.
(2) Swindle No. 2
Much was made of Pacquiao's old right shoulder rotator cuff tear injury after the match. As a doctor, I can vouch that if the injury was causing any pain at all on fight night, Pacquiao would not be able to move his right shoulder much at all, much less to even throw a punch. Looking at the video, he was clearly able to throw right punches all right. Yes, rotator cuff injuries can be totally painless. Pacquiao did not throw as many punches as he usually does, not because of right shoulder pain, but because Mayweather kept running away. So, the drama about being denied a last-minute pain-killing injection before the fight and the doubts introduced into the minds of spectators about what might have been the result if there had been no Pacquiao injury are deliberate ploys for a desired effect. Which is ... (see Swindle No. 3 below)
(3) Swindle No. 3
What we all saw on May 2 wasn't a championship boxing match. It was a kind of cynical, farcical drama designed to convince celebrities and fans to pay big money at ringside and pay-per-view to watch a fixed pseudo-match involving their boxing heroes. Swindle No. 2 is to generate controversy and interest for fans to be willing enough to be swindled one more time at a future rematch. Mayweather must win no matter what happened in the ring because only a Mayweather win can bring in more money later!
Conclusion (wink wink)
Well, boxing fans like us are smarter. We have watched it for free on YouTube (even if we are 8 weeks late). Though it wasn't genuine or authentic, at the very least, it provided some light comedy on a night when there is nothing on TV.
Having watched the 2 May 2015 fight in its entirety, it is easy to come to a firm conclusion that the "Fight Of The Century" is actually "The Swindle Of The Century".
Just watch it here:
(1) Swindle No. 1
Clearly contrary to the official result, Mayweather did not win the fight. In fact, Pacquiao was much more aggressive, landing more and landing harder punches and was obviously inferior only in Round 11. Throughout most of the match, Mayweather was looking afraid, moving backwards, running away and throwing occasional light jabs just to keep Pacquiao away from him; and when he failed, he would be backing up against the ropes, holding up both his gloves to protect his face or clinch and hold Pacquiao to stop the latter's punches. He made a poor imitation of Ali (vs Foreman) by repeatedly shaking his head to say that Pacquiao's punches did not hurt him. It was almost comical to see what's happening on the screen and listening to what the 2 glaringly prejudiced commentators were saying about Mayweather being totally dominant or holding a masterclass in boxing. The sights and the sounds were so at odds that one wonders whether we were watching the same boxing match in the same universe. Clearly, someone thought that the spectator is an idiot who can be influenced into thinking that their eyes were deceiving them. All Mayweather did convincingly was to act after the match as though he had won and pose boastfully. If we looked at Pacquiao's reaction when he raised both arms almost immediately after the last punch was thrown, it was a much more natural and spontaneous reaction.
(2) Swindle No. 2
Much was made of Pacquiao's old right shoulder rotator cuff tear injury after the match. As a doctor, I can vouch that if the injury was causing any pain at all on fight night, Pacquiao would not be able to move his right shoulder much at all, much less to even throw a punch. Looking at the video, he was clearly able to throw right punches all right. Yes, rotator cuff injuries can be totally painless. Pacquiao did not throw as many punches as he usually does, not because of right shoulder pain, but because Mayweather kept running away. So, the drama about being denied a last-minute pain-killing injection before the fight and the doubts introduced into the minds of spectators about what might have been the result if there had been no Pacquiao injury are deliberate ploys for a desired effect. Which is ... (see Swindle No. 3 below)
(3) Swindle No. 3
What we all saw on May 2 wasn't a championship boxing match. It was a kind of cynical, farcical drama designed to convince celebrities and fans to pay big money at ringside and pay-per-view to watch a fixed pseudo-match involving their boxing heroes. Swindle No. 2 is to generate controversy and interest for fans to be willing enough to be swindled one more time at a future rematch. Mayweather must win no matter what happened in the ring because only a Mayweather win can bring in more money later!
Conclusion (wink wink)
Well, boxing fans like us are smarter. We have watched it for free on YouTube (even if we are 8 weeks late). Though it wasn't genuine or authentic, at the very least, it provided some light comedy on a night when there is nothing on TV.
Friday, 12 June 2015
EAT WORK SLEEP
Just eat, work, sleep.
Having a life of cheerful cheep,
Is not something I have a peep.
To live with meaning so deep,
Is just a challenge too steep.
So, living quietly like a sheep,
Time is on an eternal creep.
That's the existence I keep.
No strength even to weep,
I just eat, work and sleep.
Sunday, 10 May 2015
THE MONSTER
Let me tell you about a monster.
It's often mistaken as a bolster.
If you're willing to play the clown,
The monster will hold you down.
It makes a drone if you truly hear,
Like a bee buzzing in your ear.
Even with your eyes shut tight,
You will still lose the fight.
It makes us sing in one voice,
So, you really have no choice.
We allowed it to go far and wide,
So now, we can't turn the tide.
It casts the good in stone,
So, the bad you can't atone.
It ring-fences your every thought,
Allowing no action to be sought.
So, it has finally dawned on me
How bad things are going to be.
The monster is the awful truth,
That makes things so uncouth.
Knowing that there's no way out,
All we can do is silently shout,
With our hearts crying in despair,
And spirits broken ... beyond repair.
Let me tell you about a monster.
It's often mistaken as a bolster.
If you're willing to play the clown,
The monster will hold you down.
It makes a drone if you truly hear,
Like a bee buzzing in your ear.
Even with your eyes shut tight,
You will still lose the fight.
It makes us sing in one voice,
So, you really have no choice.
We allowed it to go far and wide,
So now, we can't turn the tide.
It casts the good in stone,
So, the bad you can't atone.
It ring-fences your every thought,
Allowing no action to be sought.
So, it has finally dawned on me
How bad things are going to be.
The monster is the awful truth,
That makes things so uncouth.
Knowing that there's no way out,
All we can do is silently shout,
With our hearts crying in despair,
And spirits broken ... beyond repair.
.jpeg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)