December 2008
Absolute Power - The Father & Son Of Transparency
Someone wrote in to The Straits Times on Nov 14 regarding DBS bank’s way of handling the Lehman Brothers’ financial fiasco, which the bank inevitably found itself wrangled in (DBS is the national bank of Singapore). The writer said “Unlike Japan, we do not expect chairman or CEOs to resign just to make a wrong turn go away. If we cannot say sorry with some measure of grace perhaps we should let more ‘right’ actions speaks for themselves.” Sigh.
Expect a resignation we do, but can the people affect it? Only if the national press-empire thinks so too. The Government is the press, no? (I stress that that is a question!) The authorities should apologize? Why should they when they commit only “honest mistakes”? As for grace, how we Singaporeans forget that the authorities are running a country, the concept of grace should only apply to the common folk. How so? Well, if the Government offers grace to some people, others will certainly take advantage! The Government can’t help but be kiasu for good reason, you know.
The letter printed was given the headline “Sorry would have been nice”. Well, dream on, buster. This is Singapore. To apologize is to admit wrongdoing. To admit wrongdoing has punitive consequences, as that is the very nature of accountability, which the authorities are so proud to display to the world as a gesture of transparency. Gesture, darling, gesture. What speaks louder than words or speaks for themselves? Nothing. The Straits Times speaks the final be-all and end-all. In short, the Government can never be sorry because it is never wrong. But I do pardon Singaporeans for not being able to draw such obvious conclusions,
On Nov 21, 2008, there was an amazing letter in The Straits Times' Forum page.
"Why Singapore's political system works" – it was written by a Dr. Tan Wu Meng, Organizing Secretary of Young PAP (PAP- People's Action Party, Singapore's only ruling party since independence.) "Elsewhere, two-party politics has become the politics of obstruction, with government decisions blocked and debates filibustered. Indecision and paralysis prevail, even in the depths of economic crisis… The key issue is not the form of the democracy, but the results of the political process," he wrote. Truly amazing.
Amazing, because it does make you wonder why the rest of the world doesn’t know to practise this brilliant party-system of Singapore (Yes, they must be sooo stupid compared to Singapore!). Besides, not once do Singaporeans seem to question the validity of ‘total control’/'absolute power' or dare call it dictatorship. Doubly amazing that, actually, Singaporeans do question and know what to call it but the answers are all spelt out (read: dictated) by the one-&-only Straits Times who insists on having the absolute last say! (Thank heavens for the Internet.)
Absolute power corrupts? Not with the Singapore Government! Why bother with corruption when you’re the highest paid in the world (six times the salary of the US president, y'all!) and when morality is at your convenience? ("Casino – not a religious issue!" was the Government's stand to justify its need to build casinos in our "conservative society" to remain economically competitive. You'd think religious issues should come from religious institutions? Don't think it or The Straits Times will have you know that religious institutions do think like the Government too!)
On Nov 26, the ST reported that Wall Street Journal Asia was found to be in contempt of court. “In deciding whether contempt of court has been committed, many common law jurisdictions like England and Australia prefer to adopt the test of whether there has been a ‘real risk’ of undermining public confidence in the justice system. Justice Tay Yong Kwang, however, rejected this approach for Singapore… he preferred to go by whether there was an ‘inherent tendency’ to interfere with the administration of justice” – the report said. Reason? “Singapore’s unique conditions, such as its small size, made it necessary to deal firmly with attacks on the courts’ integrity.” “Inherent tendency” on account of size!
Don’t think I need to comment at all. -- X’ Ho
