Wayang

One charge that our ruling Party likes to level at the opposition here is their lack of "credibility". For example, they derided the Workers' Party, calling it the Wayang Party. Well, actually that is quite unfortunate because our ruling Party should have this accolade; just too bad that "Wayang" starts with a "W" rather than a "P".

A few illustrations. Right after the GE this year, with the votes of displeasure from the general populance as seen in the snubbing in Hougang and Potong Pasir despite the huge carrot of total $180 million for upgrading, the Party came out to say that they are going to review their strategy of tying votes to upgrading. Even their think thank which did a post mortem of the GE revealed that the people here value "fairness" above "bread and butter" issues. Yet come the end of their "review" exercise and the answer was: no change. So what happened to their previous statements that hinted at the possible change? Either that was a smoke bomb all the while (which made them a big wayang party) or they decided that Singaporeans are morons and their concerns can go to the toilet bowls for all they care. Well, I hope for their sake Singaporeans are all such pushover that come the next GE, we would all forgive them for not taking our feedback into account. If we are not, be prepared for us to throw a few of them out of government.

Then there is the spastic suggestion of getting native English speakers to teach our kids "proper" English. Now if the Party thinks that this would solve the problem, I think we are better off using all the taxpayers' money for paying them to feed dogs. Is this simplistic solution the best, the supposed best minds in our country can think of? I need not elaborate here but there are so many reasons why English standard could be dropping which many readers have pointed out in the forums of papers. Thinking that getting "native English speakers" would solve the problem is simply naive if not idiotic and an insult to Singaporeans' intelligence. Afterall, what on earth is a "native English speaker"? A Brit who speaks English? Then that would include the Welsh, Scot, Irish and the Anglo-Saxon. So suppose we narrow it down to the Anglo-Saxon Brit. How CLOSE do you want our kids to speak like "Anglo-Saxon native English speaker"? Perhaps like the students of Hogwarts in the movie of Harry Potter, or perhaps to start changing "MRT station" to "subway station"? And as if the Anglo-Saxon native English speaker does not has his own slang. There are a number of former European colonies who seemed to be suffering from an allergy to anything Western at one time or another, but Singapore being unique appear to be suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Since we like Britain so much, we should join them back! Forget about Old Man Lee's prophecy of us going back to Malaysia! They have no native English speakers you know? If we are not such suckers for things that are white, then this idea of getting native English speakers to fix the problem of sliding standard of English is just another wayang, to look as if you are solving a problem with one simple stroke of genius when in fact there is no concerted effort to get to the root of the problem and think of all the alternatives to best tackle the problem.

The other big wayang that our ruling Party likes to do is to trumpet their own success, of how because of the fact that they are in power that's why our economy does so well. Ok, if you want to take credit for something, you jolly well also take responsibility when things go into the dumps. So when we have a recession in 2002, did you see the cabinet resign? Of course not! It is the September 11, the damned terrorists, or it is the second Iraq war; in other words, when bad things happen, it is all external factors. Good things happen, it is because of we, the brilliance of the ruling Party. Weird that nobody mentioned that when Singapore's economy is growing, so is the United States and half of the world for that matter, but yet this is not due to global influence but the ruling Party "delivering the goods".

We can actually probe deeper. What "goods"? If economic growth is an end in itself, fine. But what is the use of economic growth if the poor gets poorer? It means all the money is going to the top well connected and well-to-do people! If this is the case, well, we might as well go back to the medieval feudal society where the nobles control all the resources and where wealth is concentrated in selected families or in the hands of the priests while the rest just slog and don't go anywhere. Come to think of it, is our society politically and socially not too different from a medieval society?