TR EMERITUS

War history and contemporary literature, beget images of the cruelty of the Japanese, the ‘banzai’ charge, the mass executions, the obsession with the Emperor and nationalism. It created a picture of a fanatical people. It reduced us to an understanding of generalizations, stereotypes and mockery of the Japanese. No one, no army, fought till the last man liked the Japanese No commander in the US, Great Britain, USSR, China or even Nazi Germany will allow such sacrifice. In many cases, more than 98% of the garrison was sacrificed. [​the Battle of Tarawa (November 21-23, 1943), 4,600 (17 surviving); the Battle of Kwajalein (January 30 to February 5, 1944), 7,900 (105 surviving); the Battle of Biak (May 27 to June 20, 1944), more than 10,000 (520 surviving); the Battle of Saipan (June 15 to July 9, 1944), 29,000 (921 surviving) etc..]. “...in February 1944, Prime Minister Tojo Hideki, in his “emergency declaration,” had made the sweeping call: ichioku gyokusai, “100 million gyokusai.” It was a demand that the entire Japanese population be prepared to die…”  [​Gyokusai or "Shattering like a Jewel" ​] Yet, from the many memoirs of the many young Japanese, knowing the end was near, their thoughts were mostly of their mothers as they faced death. Without question, there was mass propaganda, State coercion, social pressures, a sense of duty and honor as WW2 Japan prepared for the annihilation of its country. But, here, I am more interested in the aesthetics of “gyokusai”. The literal translation of  “gyokusai’ is “​shattered jewel ​”. Liked many other Japanese concepts of self-sacrifice such as “hara-kiri”, “kamikaze”, gyokusai is about death. It is about the perfection of life, immortalized in an act of death. A paradox, a fatalism that accentuates life at the moment of death. A jewel is admired, if, it is then shattered, its beauty is mourned all the more for its destruction. How do you explain such aesthetics about life? Surely, in a way, it seeks meaning in a life that is ephemeral, full of vicissitudes that ride on, not just egomaniac leaders but natural disasters. Thus, the final act of life, which is death, must be clothed with theatrics and philosophical beauty; which may give solace to the living, but, nonetheless, meaningless. “Does the realization of the meaninglessness and absurdity of life necessarily require suicide?”. Albert Camus. What is the absurdity? “...we build our life on the hope for tomorrow, yet tomorrow brings us closer to death and is the ultimate enemy; people live their lives as if they were not aware of the certainty of death…” The absurdity, here, I paraphrase Albert Camus, is that we lived a life based on this need for meaning, when in fact, life in its naked form is raw, unpredictable and unfathomable. It is this recognition that life is meaningless that we are free. Free from what? Free from the dogmas of politicians, religions, nationalism and the framing of our individuality; he called this; “Revolt’.But “Revolt” itself is not a fixed point, but constantly challenged. Although from another tradition, number (2) of Thich Nhat Hanh’s (Engaged Buddhism) 14 precepts explains “Revolt” clearly: “Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.” What is the absurdity in Singapore? It is to be fooled into thinking that PAP gives meaning to Singaporeans. They too are humans, they have said so publicly that their political high pay is so that they do not sacrifice too much.  They are not doing any metaphorical “gyokusai”. Ho Ching had compared perks in the US political system to Singapore political system. She should know what is the US GDP vs Singapore GDP. It is almost USD 20 trillion to Spore USD 330 billion; 61 times bigger. Is the US President given with perks equivalent to about USD 100 million annually? LKY had asked Singaporeans to be practical in our view to political high pay. Of course we should. It is clear they have realized there is no better meaning than having a good life. I don’t deny them that. But then don’t turn around arguing that long term planning means elderly and the needy have to be short changed. They too have a life. Elections are coming. I don’t want to be imbued with nationalism as a meaning to life. I am sick to death of hearing meanings given to sacrifices to be endured by the helpless, elderly and the needy. A dash of bohemian is due.   BK      Read More →

I suspect that this government, its Ministers and its policy makers do not have a good enough grasp of how high cost of living is wrecking havoc on our working class and poor citizens at the ground level. Government grants and subsidies are welcoming and heartening gestures to help our citizens cope with the rising costs of living in public housing, healthcare and education but there are deeper questions that we need to ask ourselves. To start, the costs of living is not affordable, especially for many working class and poor families. It is only affordable with grants and subsidies. A simple weekend meal for a family of four at most food courts can easily set them back by more than $30. Too many citizens simply cannot afford this, and even if they do, it is not sustainable. Businesses will pass the increasing costs to consumers and wage earners will just suffer in silence. Many Singaporeans enjoy government housing grants when buying their flats even without them asking. Those grants can range from about $5,000 to $120,000 - they are not free money and they must be paid back including interest compounded over the years when the flats are sold. Singaporean patients enjoy subsidies on their medical bills at public hospitals too. Yet again, not everybody qualifies for subsidies. Something is fundamentally wrong when our citizens' labour and earnings cannot keep up with the cost of living in this country but have to depend on their government's help. Government's money do not merely drop from the sky. It must come from somewhere and the people's pockets is one obvious place. Take public housing grant for example. If our HDB flats selling prices are priced truly affordably like what Mah Bow Tan used to tell Singaporeans so often in the past, then there is really no need for government grants to help people buy their flats. If only the PAP government is not too greedy and factor in land cost into their flat selling prices, we wouldn't have to shoulder such very heavy housing burdens over many, many years. After all, flat dwellers have no claim whatsoever to the land that their blocks are built on. Finally, the side effects of long term subsidies, grants and welfare provided by the state must bred a dependent and beholden mentality among our citizens which is both undesirable and unhealthy.   Simon Lim      Read More →

Democracy is based on "one man one vote". At each general election, the voters vote for a person to represent their constituency in parliament. The candidate with the most votes is elected. However, this system of electing the representative of the voters does not appear to work well in many countries. Why? I perceive that this system has the following weaknesses: a) The candidates are sent by the political parties. In many cases, the new candidates are hardly known to the voters. The voters can get to know the candidate only from the profile disseminated at the election and from the brief encounter with the candidate during the election rally or house visits. b) Although the voters may elect an person based on his personal qualities, his voting on issues in parliament may be subject to the direction of his political party and not on his political beliefs. He has to vote according to the party "whip". Is there another approach? I prefer that the candidates should be people who are well known to the voters in the constituency, e.g. a local leader or village chief. He should be elected based on his personal qualities and not fielded by a political party. Preferably, the candidate should have lived and worked in the community for many years and are well known to the voters. The elected person should be free to express his or her views and vote according to the best interest of the voters, and not according to the direction of his political party. Is it possible to have a parliament that is made up of local chiefs and not candidates of political parties? Is there any country that follows this approach?   Tan Kin Lian        Read More →