about the student who rattled a perm sec

this happened a couple of years back...
read about it...this is the power of the new media
and youth today!!!!

Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bilahari Kausikan, visited my school for an N.E dialogue. He made an opening address which, though short, was concise and illuminating of typical Singaporean foreign policy, which is essentially as follows: what's this thing called humanity? There's no such thing as friendship in politics, there's only a convergence of interests. The world wouldn't be any different without Singapore in it, so we must strive to make ourselves extraordinary.
This was alright in and of itself, but that mentality started to come across more and more strongly as questions were asked. One student stood up during the question and answer session and asked about the impact of outsourcing on our local population. Though that wasn't an entirely relevant question to pose a man from the MFA, he had no qualms with answering it as follows:
"We have to be realistic. There is a limit to how much re-training we can do for some workers, so we have to look overseas. Look at my generation, more than half of them didn't even complete primary school education. What are we going to do? They are not going to conveniently die off..."
At this point, I was so flabbergasted I stopped listening to the rest of his answer. Perhaps he didn't think he had to watch his words very closely, as he was only speaking to a bunch of teachers and students. I don't even think many of them caught what he said. But his callous attitude was so typical of the government's seeming attitude towards the 'chaff' of our society. The fact that older workers stubbornly remaining alive had little to do with whether or not we should be protecting domestic jobs for our own workers (like that taxi driver's son, an engineer) didn't seem to concern him. He just took his time wending down the garden path of why we should outsource jobs, and the fact that we had an aging population was just a by-the-way manner of illustrating his point.
The same attitude, though more subtly manifested, was present throughout the rest of the dialogue session as well. When asked about what ASEAN planned to do about Burma's recalcitrance to international authority with regards to its human rights situation, he said: "There's nothing we can do. Regime change is useless, and economic sanctions won't work." A student stood up, and said --
"Does that mean if thousands of people are being slaughtered in Burma, we won't do a thing because it's not in our self interest?"
"Yep."
"But if everyone thinks that way, nothing will be done."
"You're right, and most of the time nothing is done."
I proceeded to question him thus --
"You say that regime change is futile with regards to Burma, and economic sanctions don't work. Yet it is interesting that these very same punitive measures were applied to Iraq, and that Singapore had no qualms whatsoever in being a part of the coalition of the willing that showed support for the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. I have three questions, then: 1) Does that mean that though we supported the Iraq invasion, it has been a futile endeavour? 2) Did we make ourselves more of a target by announcing our support for the invasion, considering we are surrounded by countries with dominantly Muslim populations? 3) Did our willingness to be a part of the coalition have anything to do with the signing of the landmark Free Trade Agreement signed between Singapore and the USA soon after the Iraq invasion?"
To which he replied,
"The Americans were deluded, it doesn't mean we supported them because we thought it would work. I believe the question you are too polite to ask is, did we suck up to the U.S? Well, yes, our basic interest was to show support for the USA, you are right. But what did we really commit to it? How much of our assets did we lend to Iraq? We put one plane in the air and one ship in the sea. And were we more of a target because of it? To which I reply...we were already a target before the invasion."
Okay, freeze-frame a moment here. I believe this man was being extremely loose with his words because, again, he was talking to a bunch of kids (900 or so of them). Hence his carelessness with language. But I appreciated this hour and a half of candour because it gave me a lot of insight, personally into how Singapore operates like: a cold and calm automaton of self-interest. We don't care about whether or not the Kurds and the Shi'ites are being helped by regime change -- we don't want to implicate ourselves too badly by, God forbid, actually committing troops or doing something more than 'one plane in the air and one ship in the sea'. And we were willing to do something that made us more of a target, knowing full well we were already a target of hostilities to our dear neighbours Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., so we could profit from a FTA. There is no interest in common humanity here, there is only a cool-headed weightage of pros and cons.
This is, of course, an entirely attractive idea. Look out for your own selves and you shan't have to bother about the person next to you unless it is expedient for you to do so. A student asked him why we were unwilling to help to build the bridge between Malaysia and Singapore as a gesture of goodwill between neighbours, and he said:
"You want to build a bridge? Sure. But make it worth my while."
This mentality of self-interest -- which, let's call a spade a spade, is really selfishness -- sounds well and good until we begin to consider a few things. Firstly, I'm quite concerned that Singapore's selfish tendencies may just come round to bite us in the behind at some point. Our reluctance to do anything about Burma means that ASEAN is weakened from within, and our reputation as a region tarnished overseas. Our small-mindedness about the matter of goodwill and ties between Malaysia is not only downright obnoxious, but spells out ill omens for diplomatic and trading ties between the nations in the future. And let's not even talk about what will happen when the water agreement expires. With regards to Iraq? Our insensitivity to our neighbours' needs and our willingness to 'suck up to the US', which he essentially conceded, is hardly going to endear ourselves to Islamic radicals in the region. Gee, I wonder which secular, Westernized, urban, capitalist, soulless, amoral, small, vulnerable, nation-state in Southeast Asia we shall bomb today, Azari Husin?
More than that though, our selfishness in our foreign policy is an outward reflection of an inward ugliness, which is to be coldly calculative of our interests and to be perfectly willing to sacrifice human welfare in the process, if we deem it a fitting sacrifice. The taxi driver's lament of "money, money, money" is precisely what Kausikan is articulating more verbosely with his "international relations is governed by no other obligation than a convergence of interests". When I say that it is our basic and fundamental moral obligation to people other than ourselves, and I use that to justify needing to temper our foreign policy with some measure of goodwill and genuine concern for the people of Burma and Iraq, others cry 'idealist'! But do these same people realize that unless we affirm this fundamental duty to someone else, a capitalist society like Singapore will always and forever place the interests of the rich above that of the poor, and tolerate, even condone the suffering of some in order to further the interests of others?
Look at this extract from an article by Asiaweek magazine, here:
"What happened to Singapore, the land of plenty? In its rush to forge a manufacturing, then a high-tech economy, the city-state rarely bothered to look back at those who were lagging. Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew developed a system based on hard work and government support for industry. Singaporeans were expected to earn their rewards. The results were astounding: a middle class emerged to build Asia's second-richest country. But with the advent of globalization and an influx of cheap foreign workers, Singapore's economy is becoming increasingly ruthless. According to its own statistics, the nation's rich are getting richer and the poor are falling further behind. To most Singaporeans, the mere existence of poor folk in need of care packages comes as a shock. And this realization has prompted an uncharacteristic bout of soul-searching. The rich-poor disparity strikes right at the heart of Singapore's development model - and challenges the city's smug self-image."
Though the article is dated 2000, nothing much has truly changed since then. In fact, our idea of finding solutions for the old and the poor are to a) buy them off with quick injections of cash via the Progress Package at election time, which has virtually no long-term implications for a sustained increase in national income due to the fact that the multiplier effect for government spending is minimal as we have a highly open economy with many withdrawals, and b) ship them off to Johore, Bintam and Batam. Oh yes, and let us not forget c) the raising of the minimum retiring age, so that more old people can sell tissue paper and clean toilets.
The truth is that Singapore should not, any longer, be willing to countenance the compromising of human welfare in order to feed its own selfish interests, which revolve around the rich and the middle classes. What about those who have been retrenched, who have worked hard but are unable to find jobs -- what about the elderly and the disabled? Our citizens are not units to be judged and weighed according to the marginal revenue each one brings to our coffers. This is a mentality which we have to accept in our domestic policies, but one we seem to be currently deadset against. Our foreign policy is a reflection of how we treat our own people: with expedience. Baldfaced, unashamed, expedience.
I appreciate and commend Mr. Bilahari Kausikan for a candid and open discussion, which generally had no holds barred (except when I asked him about Temasek Holding's takeover bid for ShinCorp and how that had had negative bearings on our bilateral ties with Thailand, to which he promptly and categorically denied any government association with the deal and insisted that the MFA was not consulted, 'nor did it want to be consulted'). But honestly, I'm creeped out by the fact that our government is probably populated with people who think just like him. And the general feedback I received from everyone was this: "He was good, but boy, I wouldn't want to be his friend." That's Singapore. Good at what it does, extremely efficient, no doubt, but boy, I'm embarrassed to be a Singaporean sometimes. We're not making very many friends, and neither are we, to be honest, being good friends to the very people in our midst who need our friendship and our helping hand the most. Who says beauty is on the inside? The ugliness within is the same ugliness without -- only, I think, with far more devastating consequences for our people.
Posted at 11:21 pm by gaylegoh






Dear Ms Goh

I read your blog response to my NE talk with great interest.

I do not agree with everything you said. But I am happy to have engaged you.

My aim in such NE talks is to start the audience thinking.

The worst response is indifference. That is very discouraging and if most young Singaporeans are merely indifferent, there is little hope for the future.

I much prefer disagreement to indifference.

Those who have advised you to 'be careful', tone down your criticisms or lie low have given you bad advice and do yourself, the government and Singapore no favours.

Not that we should value controversy for controversy's sake.

Let us therefore agree to disagree where we must, but try to find some common parameters where we can.

I start from the premise that our primary responsibility is to Singapore, not a generalised humanity. For unless Singapore survives and prospers, we cannot do anything for anybody else.

I don't think you strongly disagree with this. We perhaps disagree on how we should define our interests and what is possible at any time.

I did not mean that we should always define Singapore's interests narrowly. But however defined, it is important that they be our interests.

Some friends who read your blog described you as intelligent but idealistic.

There is nothing wrong with being idealistic. In fact, I hope I still am too. But it should be a tough minded idealism.

Singapore is a small country. By and large, we are price takers not price setters.

This does not mean we are powerless. It does not mean we must eschew dreams.

We can, we must and we do influence our own future.

But we can do so only if we start from an objective analysis of where we are and what options are open to us.

Wishful thinking is the prerogative of larger countries.

Our starting point must be the world as it is and not as we would like it to be.

My main point at the NE lecture was that there are many challenges that have no simple solutions.

Solutions, even when available, often create new problems to which solutions also have to be found, and so it goes on and on and on.

I used strong language to get your attention. If it has offended you or anyone else, I am sorry. [Emphasis mine]

But I do not think language should distract anyone from my essential message: there are no simple solutions; in fact sometimes, at a particular point of time, there are no solutions to specific problems.

Does this mean that we should give up? Of course not. Mine is a counsel of realism, not despair.

We must strive to understand clinically and unsentimentally what can be achieved at any particular moment on any particular issue.

Perfect solutions are not to be found this side of heaven. We should not pursue the ideal at the expense of the achievable. And sometimes we must accept that we cannot do anything.

Fortunately, economic restructuring, the specific subject on which you quoted me, is not one of those areas where nothing can be done.

You may recall that this issue arose when one of your classmates asked me what I thought about outsourcing.

My reply was that this was not a choice but a fact; it was going to happen whether we liked it or not.

We might as well complain about the weather. Rather than just grumble, better prepare ourselves by getting an umbrella or warm clothing. We may still get wet or cold, but we at least mitigate its effects.

The world is becoming far more competitive and we will always have to stay ahead of the game or go down.

I don't think anyone strongly disagreed with this. But this is not the end of the story.

Even if we can find new ways to make a living - and so far we have - there will be other problems.

I told you that half of my cohort did not finish primary school, not because they lacked ability, but because Singapore was then very poor and they could not afford to do so.

What are we going to do with these people as we move up the international value chain? Our life expectancy is increasing and the issue is going to be with us for many years to come.

Many countries face a similar problem.

But no country in history has ever moved from Third World to First World within a single generation. This poses unique challenges.

And we must face these unique challenges within our unique constraints.

It makes a difference if you have 400 million people or only 4 million; it makes a difference if you face issues from the perspective of 400 years of shared history or only 40.

It makes a difference if you are located in Southeast Asia rather than in North America or Europe or Northeast Asia.

Welfarism a la the West is not a viable option. We can't afford it. And even the Western countries are finding out that they can't afford it either.

This was just one example of the unique situation Singapore is in.

Your generation is going to have to confront this and many other issues. I cannot prescribe solutions for you because I do not know the answers. All I can do is point out some of the limits which are unlikely to disappear.

What the government is doing is not perfect, but it is the best that we have managed, up to now. There are no perfect solutions to any other of life's challenges, public or personal. Your generation's task is to improve on it, and do better for Singa¬pore.

So keep on thinking; keep on writing; and do not hold back.

Please feel free to post this on your blog if you think it will be useful.

Good luck!

Sincerely,

Bilahari Kausikan
________________________________________

Here is the response I have e-mailed to Mr. Kausikan:
Dear Mr. Kausikan,

Thank you for having taken the time to craft a very thoughtful response to my article. Again, I would like to say how much I appreciated your candour and the accuracy of your insights. You did ruffle a number of feathers, but I believe any who took offense did so with the grudging admission that you most definitely had a point.

Yes, our primary responsibility is indeed to Singaporeans. I feel however, that at times the methods with which we govern may be counter-productive to this responsibility. Specific to the NE dialogue, I refer to the reputation we accrue as being calculative, opportunistic and even petty with regards to issues like our water agreements with Malaysia and the would-be bridge. Cultivating good ties with our neighbours is a long-term way of engendering a good reputation for Singapore as a country willing and ready to take on a larger role of responsibility in Asia and beyond. Perhaps instead of thinking "what's in it for me", as you mentioned with regards to the issue of the bridge, we should think "what's in it for them, is also what's in it for me". I believe that Chiam See Tong had a valid point when he raised the issue of detoriating Singapore-Malaysia ties recently.

It is for this reason that I brought up the issue of Thailand-Singapore relations during the Question and Answer session. I am still unconvinced that it is a purely commercial matter on which the MFA should not be consulted upon. If the Thai Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Kraisak Choonhavan can write a letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong asking him to conduct an inquiry into the matter, then it has clearly transcended the boundaries of corporate investment, and been turned into a question of national interests, proportions and implications.

Beyond the issues raised during the NE dialogue, I would also like to point out that our stern domestic policies have also created a negative reputation overseas. I refer here to outgoing U.S ambassador Franklin L. Lavin when he expressed disappointment over Singapore's curbs on political expression and said, in that context, "In my view governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing the full participation of their citizens." Mr. Lavin also mentioned that he felt "embarrassed" when Singaporean police asked him if he wanted to press charges against demonstrators who gathered outside the US embassy to protest the Iraq invasion.

Your words of encouragement on my blog have been very inspiring. Yet at the same time conflicting signals are coming from the government when it bans election advertising in the blogosphere, for example. Might not a loosening of such regulations achieve the dual effect of increasing the attachment Singaporeans like myself feel with our country, and also showing Singapore to be an open and consultative society Western democracies may deal with freely, without fear that we are overly-ruled by authoritarianism?

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for allowing me the rare chance of expressing my views directly to a government official. I hope and trust that an increasing number of Singaporeans, young and old alike, will find that it is easier and more rewarding to do so than they might expect.

With warm regards and best wishes,
Gayle Goh
Those who are wondering about the context of this correspondence, you can read about it here, in an earlier entry. I think the Straits Times will have something to say regarding it tomorrow, but then again one never knows. Something more newsworthy might crop up. Something really insane that we would never have predicted in a million years, like: the next General Election shall be free and fair.

Addendum: The article did indeed appear in today's edition of the Straits Times, 17 May 2006, Home section page 10. Tiny but well written. And the ST photographer who dropped by took a cute picture of my cat and me, and e-mailed it to me -- which is a really good thing, seeing as they didn't use any pictures anyway. I'm too fugly.