The Forgotten Past

While most of us probably know who Lee Kuan Yew is, there is a high possibility that names like Toh Chin Chye, Eddie Barker, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam will elicit a very Singaporean "catch no ball response" from the younger generation. In fact it was only after Rajaratnam passed away last year whereby his achievements were made known to the public, leading many younger Singaporeans to make comments like " I didn't know Mr Rajaratnam penned the National Pledge" and so on so forth. Thus it seems that in so far as the development of modern Singapore is concerned, it was all the effort of one man, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Even his old guard is slowly being forgotten in society.

If thats the case, what then of those who fought, IN THEIR OWN small way, for Singapore, notwithstanding that they did not fight under the lightning bolt? If even those who fought under the lightning bolt are rarely mentioned, except in their passing, then those who were under a different banner are slowly being removed from the National History. Men like Lim Chin Siong, Lee Siew Choh, CC Tan (of the Progressive Party, chief rival being the Labour Front) among others. Men like Zahari, who's movie was just banned because of the alleged attempt to portray the government in a negative light, Francis Seow, once a rising star, Gopalan Nair, who blogs in his http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/ and Tang Liang Hong have also been, tarred, their memories forever stained. Given time, no one will remember these people who, despite the National Narrative which states the contrary, fought for what they believed in and perhaps have paid the ultimate price.

Putting all the debate on whether those men were given a fair deal, lets look at a certain person, who's name is not there. Leader of the then Labour Front and 1st Chief Minister of Singapore, he is none other than the redoubtable David Saul Marshall (1908-1995).

David Marshall is a rather well known person in both the blogosphere and the legal sphere. In the blogosphere, there are few bloggers who have not seen Dharmandra Yadev's interview with David Marshall. In the legal circle, he was a renowned Criminal Lawyer, having been involved in several of Singapore's very own "trials of the century", to wit, the Joseph Michael Nonis Case, the Watts-Carter Trial, the case of Thanami among others. In fact, one of the rationals Mr Lee used to justify the abolishment of trial by jury was that “David Marshall is responsible for 200 murderers walking freely the streets of Singapore.” However, there are other sides of the David Marshall that not many people talk about.

http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/independence/ref/david.html This was published in the ST on December 13 1995. While the thing speaks for itself, there are several paragraphs of note.

"When he failed to convince the colonialists to relinquish control to him, he kept his promise to the people and resigned in protest, leaving the seats of power to be filled by more modest men.
By then, he had fired the imagination of a whole generation of post-war nationalists. In his inimitable, innocent and enthusiastic way, he was a populist politician who, more than anyone else in the early 1950s, aroused the interest of the common man in elections. He could mesmerise a crowd with his magnificent oratory -- the commanding, authoritative tone, the measured cadences, the well-chosen words -- or send them into paroxysms of laughter.
His tenure as Chief Minister was, by present standards, not a phenomenal success. He was strong on ideas but poor on details, leading what some hacks of the day called a "walking administration"; policies were formed as he walked along the corridors of power from one department to another.
But even though he failed to follow through on the numerous good ideas he spawned, many were subsequently embellished and translated into policies by the People's Action Party that took over the reins of government in 1959, such as the creed of multi-lingualism and multi-racialism, an education policy for nation-building, meet-the-people sessions and the Central Provident Fund. "

The highlighted portions speak for themselves. As can be seen, David Marshall succeeded in politicising a generation of Singaporeans so that they would start to think of other stuff rather than their rice bowls and whether they were going to get hand outs or not. In fact, it is entirely possible that Marshall's politicising of the populace eventually helped the opposition PAP gain control of the Parliament. I must say that it takes great skill in politicising a populace, and can say that perhaps there are few in these times who can successfully emulate such a feat.

Furthermore, it can be seen that he had many ideas which have become translated to reality in Singapore today. While it is true that as Chief Minister his track record seems to pale in comparison to Lee Kuan Yew's it would be unfair to then write him off as a force during those turbulent times. As Marshall gave PAP credit where credit was due, people should also do likewise, that is to say give Marshall credit for his ideas. In fact a case in note would be the Roman Empire, which "borrowed" from various civilisations such as the Greeks. Unforunately all we hear about Marshall nowadays is how he let "murderers" go free, and even then no one talks about WHY Marshall believed in the thing he did. Marshall's contributions, and that of the abovementioned people, are slowly being forgotten as time goes by. Yes, PAP was the party in power when Singapore made the transformation from Third to First World, but what is PAP? A Party. Who makes up the party? The People in the party, of which Mr Lee Kuan Yew was one of them. BUT to throw everything at Mr Lee feet is to neglect Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Marshall and the countless others who have, at one point or another, played a part in this Nation's history, be it under the lightning bolt or the hammer or what have you. That, as Heck Tate puts it in To Kill A Mockingbird, is a sin.

* Herein is the article by Thrasymachus on Dr Toh Chin Chye and Mr Rajaratnam.

http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-ii-true-founders-of-singapore-man.html
http://singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-iii-tribute-to-s.html

** And this is the David Marshall Interview at Drew and Napier.

http://thinkhappiness.blogspot.com/2006/08/meeting-david-marshall-in-1994.html

Much Ado about the ST forum (Reloaded)

Im actually getting quite tired of this. In fact I tried to tell myself not to talk anymore about the darn forum. Unfortunately circumstances prove otherwise with the example below.

Are Homosexuals Truly Born Gay?
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue with 400 Young PAP members on Saturday that, 'if in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?'
Are homosexuals born gay? Why the importance to prove this issue? The reason is simple: If society is convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then there would be a need for the Government to not criminalise this behaviour, and, by extension, even protect homosexuals as a designated minority class.
In the United States, this debate is far from over. While a publication by research journal Science, claiming that we were 'on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable, a normal variant of human nature', generated much media interest in the early 1990s, scientific attempts to prove homosexual genes have yet to really bear fruit.
A study conducted in 1991 which attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins actually provided support for environmental factors versus genetics.
If homosexuality were indeed in the genetic code, then both of the twins should be homosexual 100 per cent of the time, yet this was not the case.
The LeVay brain study of 1991, which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men found no evidence that there is any genetic cause for homosexuality.
Other prominent researchers concluded that there was a lack of evidence to support a biological theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where 'temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges'.
With respect to possibly decriminalising homosexual behaviour in the upcoming Penal Code review, I urge the Government to refrain from proceeding hastily in view of inconclusive findings on 'homosexual genes'.
Agnes Chai Shiang Jen (Ms)

I wonder if the ST would actually publish a letter rebutting this views. Perhaps then they will say that the letter is promoting a homosexual lifestyle, perhaps not. As Yoda would say, hard to see the future is.

"Are homosexuals born gay? Why the importance to prove this issue? "

This statement begs the question, of why there is a need to prove that homosexuals are born gay a not. It appears that the writer believes that whether Section 377A is repealed would be dependent on whether homosexuality is a thing that is inborn or not. As can be seen by the sentence that follows the above and the last sentence of the entire letter (the one in bold).

While i am no psychic, I must say that her argument can be summarised as this:

- Section 377A should not be repealed hastily

- This is because Science has yet to prove that homosexuality is caused by genetics.

Therefore, if science proves that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, then Section 377A should stay.

But the above begets the question, WHY?

Why must such a law which sticks its proverbial nose into what you do in your bedroom be in force? Perhaps she subscribes to the view that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, as can be inferred from this line;

"If society is convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then there would be a need for the Government to not criminalise this behaviour,"

Well if that is the case then i must say i find it worrying that society should have a say in the laws of the land. Such a situation has, in the past, resulted in persecution and discrimination against people society outcast. To Kill A Mockingbird shows us how the legal system, whilst supposing to dispense justice, instead causes injustice for an innocent men precisely because Society is against afro americans. There are many instances where what society believes is right has resulted in death and suffering; for example, the Persecutions of the Jews, eventually culminating in the holocaust and the Persecutions of the Early Christians. The Law should be the tool to regulate society and not be twisted by society.

Furthermore, even if homosexuality is "unnatural" in humans, why then should it be punishable with life imprisonment? Can someone tell me the "harm" if any, that is caused by homosexuals who have consented to doing their thing? If harm there be, then is it more serious than rape, as the punishment seems to be harsher?

Ahah! But what about morals then? There will be those who will declare " Homosexuality is IMMORAL!" But of course morality depends on which religion to subscribe to doesnt it? And if it does then why do you want to impose your morality using through the laws of a SECULAR state? And the morality thing is a dangerous area to go into; the Inquisition and the persecution of Jews during the middle ages stand as testament to that.

The crux of the matter is this; in so far as those other groups have the right to push for legislation, odious though that may seem, the government of any country should and must not allow themselves to be influenced by such lobbying. In my opinion whether something should be criminalised a not should be determined by the harm caused, among other things. As the bedroom acts of 2 consenting homosexuals does not appear to cause any harm, then it is only fair that Section 377A should be repealed.

* with regards to the writers take on genes, i do not think being twins may necessary mean that ur genetic make up is 100% the same. In fact i know of twins who are rather different in behaviour.

** Homosexuality was actually rather prevalent in the past. In Ancient Greece, the City of Thebes has a special elite unit known as the Sacred Band. They followed a buddy system as seen in the military, just that the buddies happened to be gay buddies, an older man paired with a younger. They called it pedrasty if i remember correctly. It was said that the men will fight harder for their lover's sake. Oh and btw, Alexander the Great was said to be gay.

Artificial Dynamism?

Once again, the Minister Mentor speaks, this time to a crowd of ypap fellas at St James Powerstation. http://news.asiaone.com.sg/st/st_20070423_113313.html

Suffice to say, there was the usual thing about how Singapore will sink into the bottom of the South China sea and what have you should Singapore get a "dumb" government, in this sense it seems to be that a "dumb" government is any government whereby the PAP is not in control.

But ignoring the "my way or your sis becomes a maid" kind of talk, his point about Singapore embarking on the pathway to be a dynamic international city is a sound one, and as this one has said somewhere in the depths of the past, such a solution is the only tenable one in the long run since there is no way Singapore can continue to compete with China and India just by relying on workers, no matter how skilled or unskilled they may be. However, as the saying goes, saying is one thing, doing is another.

It appears that despite the progress Singapore has made in the economic frontier, the progress in the socio-political frontier still leaves much to be desired. The ST, which continues to be a mouthpiece of the ruling party, the fact that Mr Brown got whacked and low blowed, the a/m "my way or your sis becomes a maid" kind off talk inter alia. It seems that while the MIW believes that a dynamic city is the way for Singapore to go, they have purely deigned to make cosmetic changes; for example the Speaker's Corner, the wooing of foreigners to add "diversity" to the society, the introduction of Crazy Horse and the IRs, so on so forth.

The above are similar by virtue of the fact that they are initiated by the PAP government. The "dynamism" is artificial more than it is spontaneous. At the end of the day the "chaos" in society will be the "chaos" that either they approve of or the "chaos" that they engineer. In a sense is this not similiar to the past where engineering society was the norm?

While one can argue that it doesnt matter what colour the cat is as long as it catches the mice, the fact of the matter is artificial dynamism has a rather poor track record. The Speaker's Corner remains rather empty and Crazy Horse has gone back to France. Meanwhile we have the MDA coming after Singapore's own talents such as Martyn See and the fella who created that book with Aaron Kwok, among other things. There are also the veiled threats against the netizens and the labelling of dissenters as ingrates, dummkopfs with no sense of proportion, etc etc. Thus it appears that while they are pushing for a dynamic cosmopolitan society, they have no tolerance for those who do not toe the line. This is rather contradictory.

While there are those who will throw the report card in this one's face, declaring that Singapore has a high GDP, largest reserves, so on so forth, this one will also throw another report card, of kingdoms and dynasties long gone, the Qin Dynasty http://aaron-ng.info/blog/lessons-from-the-qin-dynasty.html, the Byzantine Empire http://nedstark.blogspot.com/2007/04/blast-from-past-discussion-on-aarons.html, Imperial China, among others. The examples of these show that overwheliming concentration of power in the hands of one or a few men will and has resulted in disastrous consequences for the nation/state/ kingdom as a whole. It could be as short as 20+ years (Qin) or it could be 300+ years (Byzantine Empire) but one cannot deny the fact that there is merit in the idea of an alternative elite as espoused by Ngiam Tong Dow.

* This one wrote a long rambling post on Singapore http://nedstark.blogspot.com/2007/01/thoughts-on-singapore-singapore-is-like.html here.

** With regards to the oft mentioned point that Singapore has no natural resources but its people, there is one point which few have discussed. Namely, Singapore's location as a gateway, which was one of the reasons why Raffles decided to set up shop here, and the fact that Singapore is not subject to any natural disasters, thus adding to a certain level of safety in the country. For example a business man who sets up shop in Singapore does not need to worry about earthquakes and typhoons and tsunamis.

*** With regards to the use of long short cuts, this is because this one has no idea how to make it shorter. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to offer advice?:P

Ode to Ben and Kit

" For ever, and for ever, farewell, Cassius!If we do meet again, why, we shall smile;If not, why, then, this parting was well made"

Ben and Kitana have been the "main stay" of the blogosphere for quite a long time. If one's attention is diverted to the links one can find their blogs on it. However if one is not mistaken then Ben's blog (1MoreSG) was taken down a week ago and Kitana has just announced the closure of her blog. http://kitana.wordpress.com/

Though this one cannot conclude that the withdrawal was due to the accumulation of much pent up anger and bitterness over the way things have been going on, the way people like to slam the label ingrate whenever one does not share the view espoused by the men in white, the way some fellas like to go " my way or the high way (or your mother become maid)!!! inter alia.

But one is rambling...anyway this one would miss Ben's blog for it is mind boggling in the extreme and requires many many rereads. In fact the last few posts became more and more confusing and the brain had to recharge for some time. Nevertheless Ben's blog has been a rather interesting read and hopefully he will pop up in the net and give his two percent worth.

With regards to Kitana, though she doesn't always have the cheemness of the aforementioned Ben's blog, this in no way detracts from the beauty of the posts. While Ben's blog is often an exercise of mental power, Kitana's posts are more of a personal view of how she sees things. In fact it is rather easy to relate to her as this one also happens to be a pessimist and idealist depending on the time of the day/month/...

And so the blogosphere changes again. Even the Legal Janitor seems to be in semi retirement. This one remembers talking about this to Aaron and he told this one its ok as there will be others who will take up the swords of those who have gone. There is merit to what he says but as this one is a sentimental fella this one will still feel sad that the pillars of yesterday have disappeared. Ah well.

" The bloggers three have vanished as if in a dream, this useless misery is the blogosphere's to grieve"

The third blogger is Gayle.

*Update: I just found out that Zyberzitizen is also retiring from the blogosphere. This is rather sad; however read his post carefully and one will find that hope still remains in Pandora's box.

Nothing Ado about the ST Forum; Much ado about a Wage freeze

Here is a rather good balanced letter in the ST Forum. In fact the writer has echoed my thoughts far better than i would have expressed them.

FOLLOWING the debates on ministerial pay, one gets the impression that, like the recent anti-smoking advertising campaign, the Government is using 'scare tactics' to justify the latest round of pay hikes.
While one cannot dispute the fact that Singapore has done well over the years and that our ministers have been very well paid, such an association does not imply a causal relationship.
The people have been warned about the number of bad governments there are in the world, but is there any concrete proof to demonstrate that high pay equals good government and, more importantly, that low pay equals bad government?
In addition, high pay cannot necessarily buy or guarantee integrity, as the National Kidney Foundation scandal and Enron case amply show.
Also, extrapolations from the business world have their limits. Much has been said about the fact that a CEO is constantly being scrutinised whereas a minister only has to stand for election once every five years. I would like to add that public accountability may be further diminished by the fact that some MPs get to 'walk over' into Parliament on the back of uncontested GRC wards, election after election.
It has also been argued that a competitive pay package is required to attract the right talent with the right 'heart'. I note that the medical profession is not included in the six benchmark professions, yet every year there is no shortage of students applying for medical school. Surely this is an indication that there are many talented Singaporeans who are willing to forego better pay to serve society.
The last election gives me faith that there are many more public-spirited citizens from all professions and walks of life out there.
Lastly, I applaud the Prime Minister's decision to freeze his pay for the next five years, and his pledge to donate any pay rise to charity. He is truly a man who leads by example, and I hope that the rest of the ministers and MPs, especially those who have voiced their concerns about the benchmark, will demonstrate their 'heart' and follow suit.
Siow Tian Rui

There is currently a storm in Aaron's blog regarding the issue of LHL donating his pay increase to charity. http://aaron-ng.info/blog/pm-lee-leads-by-example.html#comment-14623

Basically to simplify matters, its an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. There are many who have said that Mr Lee Hsien Loong is merely doing this to pull wool over people's eyes and to try to regain moral capital. The fact that the ST stated that he would freeze his pay for 5 years does make it rather compelling.

However this brings us to another issue. If Mr Lee was some tycoon who had no links to the government, would there be such accusations? The answer is most probably no. In this instance the fact that he is linked to the government does tend to cast this gesture as a self serving one, for the sake of capital rather than out of any altriustic purpose. The fact that the media and some PAP fellas have started to give bouquets would only make matters worse.

That begs the question; how can one be in possession of the knowledge that Mr Lee is doing this for the purposes above? To put it in a simpler way, what makes Mr Lee, for lack of a better word, "guilty"?

Unfortunately there is not much "evidence" to prove the above notion. Using legal standards, he is "innocent" until proven "guilty" and as there is reasonable doubt about his actual intentions it would be premature to actually start levelling accusations against him. There is a possibility that what is happening is as Aaron has put it, 以小人之心，度君子之腹. True while the fact that PAP has always been paranoid about perceived threats and has taken action to counter it works against it in this instance, it would be easier perhaps to ask oneself why do we not give him the benefit of the doubt? Does being a PM and the son of LKY make one less worthy of being given the benefit of doubt?

To end of, lets take the example of a person i respect, the late David Saul Marshall. He was renowned for his humanitarian views and of the fact that he would defend those who faced the "Date with Darshan". In fact he did not ask for any payment from the defendant during the Nonis Trial and he also charged the poor people 1 dollar for tax purposes.

However as a lawyer he had a steep price. Apparently you had to pay upfront $3000 just to consult him. So if one applies the principle that Mr Lee is doing it for political purposes to boost his reputation, then can the same not be said of Mr Marshall, that he took those cases just to boost his reputation and gain renown? And if not, on what grounds do we apply a different standard to Mr Lee's action?

Blast from the Past

The discussion on Aaron's blog http://aaron-ng.info/blog/benevolent-authoritarism-is-it-possible.html has gotten this one's brain juice churning. Being a history buff has always made me link historical issues to current issues; as i subscribe to the view that "history repeats itself". The spur to this post however was in LCC's comment.

"And if I am not wrong, some prominent U.S. academic (it was Samuel Huntington, I think) once said that the democratic system implemented by Lee Teng Hui will live on after him but the system built by Lee Kuan Yew will disappear once he is gone."

If the above is true (and the above rather compelling if one takes into account the cheerleading during the budget debates) then such a situation will bode ill for Singapore in the future, for a variety of reasons. Of course besides Lee Kuan Yew there are still heavy weights around (Goh Chok Tong, Teo Chee Hean..so on) but what happens if the old guard goes and the new guard come into their own?

An interesting Parallel

The Roman Empire dominated much of the known world; from the Isles of Britain to the sands of Parthia. Yet as in all things the massive empire began to rot from within and face more challenges without. Eventually the Empire Split into the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire thanks to the reforms of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (284-305). Eventually the Western Empire collapsed due to pressure from the various barbarians (the official end of the Western Empire is recognised as the date Romulus Augustus, the last emperor abdicated, namely 4 September 476). The Eastern Empire, now known as the Byzantine Empire, continued for a millenia. With its capital at Constantinople (present Istanbul) the Byzantines were the rivals of the ancient chinese in terms of culture, technology, economy among other things. The West in the middle ages could not compare to the glory of the Empire.

Unfortunately the Empire was beset by enemies. The bulgars, slavs, arabs, normans and turks constantly tested the Empires strength. In 1071, the Emperor Romanos Diogenes was captured and the Byzantine army defeated at Manzikert. In one stroke, the Empire lost the Anatolian heartlands. Eventually Romanos was freed only to be faced with rebellion. He eventually surrendered and was blinded and executed. Michael Doukas became Emperor and the Empire steadily lost more land.

A Strongman Arises

Emperor Nikephorus III Botaniates had an able general in Alexios Comnenus. Nikephorus administration left much to be desired and the Byzantine currency continued to depreciate. Eventually Alexios, while marshalling troops to defend Italy against the Normans, was approached by the Doukas faction who wanted to overthrow Nikephorus. A bloodless coup ensued and Alexios was crowned Emperor by Patriarch Kosmas I on April 4, 1081.

At that time the empire faced threats from the Normans and several of the other tribes at her borders. Through skilled diplomacy Alexios succeeded in dealing with the various tribes. To retake the Empires territories in Asia Minor, Alexios I Comnenus appealed to the West for aid. This appeal impressed Pope Urban II that the Pope preached a Crusade, leading to the 1st Crusade and the eventual establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. During that time the Byzantine Empire, with the aid of the crusaders, succeeded in reclaiming Western Asia Minor (1097-1099).

Alexios instituted several reforms. Previously the Empire had been divided ino themes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema. Alexios coopted many of the noble families into the Imperial Family, and by extension the government. The army, which had been raised through the Theme system, was reconstituted into a new Komnenian Army. While in the past the Theme based armies had relative autonomy, Alexios' reforms ensured that the Imperial Government would have greater control over the army and the economy. These reforms changed the character of the Byzantine government as the coopting reduced the opposition to the Imperial Family. Alexios reforms heralded a period known as the Komnenian restoration, whereby the Byzantines experiences a financial, territorial and military recovery.

The End

The Emperors of the Comnenied dynasty were similar in mold to Alexios; their diligence helped to safeguard the Empire for more years to come. Unfortunately all this ended with the death of the last Comnenid Emperor, Andronikos I who was deposed and killed (12 September 1185) after an uprising which was a result of his attempts to suppress the aristocracy. Isaac II Angelos succeeded him heralding a start of the decline of the Empire. The Angelids were the worst dynasty in history; being more concerned with pleasure rather than administration. As the system of government established by Alexios relied heavily on the personal intervention of the ruling emperor, the lack of a competent emperor made the state extremely vulnerable in times of crisis. (As a matter of note, the Angelid Emperors presided over an era which saw the Sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade,1204) Though it took a long time for the Empire to finally be extinguished, the seeds could be said to have started, ironically, during the start of the restoration. By establishing a system which depended heavily on the presence of a competent ruler, Alexios failed to take into account the presence of an incompetent ruler and thus could be said to have played a part in the Empires eventual decline. Eventually, in 1453, March the Armies of Mehmed II laid siege to Constantinople and on May 29, the city fell to the Ottomans, the last Byzantine Emperor having cast of his imperial reglia and joined in the last stand of the cty. An interesting point to note was that out of 7000 defenders, fully 2000 were mercenaries. Only 5000 Byzantines participated in the defence of their capital.

So the point being?

So what has a long dead empire to do with modern day Singapore? For starters one should compare the similarities in government. The Byzantine government was vastly superior to that of the Western kingdoms. It was much akin to that of Imperial China. But the interesting point is the fact that Alexios I, the Emperor who instituted the reforms which allowed for the Empires revival, was also partly instrumental to causing the decline of the Empire. His system of government was too reliant on the competence of one man and thus the absence of such a variable would lead to catastrophe.

If one looks at LCC's comment again then its apparent that therein is the similarity between the current system in Singapore and the one instituted during that period of time. The institution of policies which help entrench the current party, for example the GRC, could lead to a situation in the future whereby the Singapore government would be missing the variables to do with competent leaders. If that happens then this country could be in for a long haul.

And that is why Mr Ngiam Tong Dow's point that Singapore should have an alternative elite is compelling. The absence of strong competition would eventually cause the system to atrophy, and if there should be a crisis then the new guys who had it easy may not be able to cope and then Singapore would really be in trouble. People and PAP members alike have to accept the fact that Singapore is larger than the PAP, and just because PAP was the ruling party long before independance is no guarantee that PAP would have the competence in the future. The historical example of the Byzantine Empire is particularly interesting; Constantinople's sack occured during the reign of the Angelid Emperor who succeeded the previous Komnenid.

And if any unintelligent joker would like to take issue with the comment on GRC, saying that people should not expect the ruling party to make things easier for the opposition, the fella is missing the point of this post. The example of GRC is just that, an eg to show by what means PAP has tried to raise the barrier for contest.

Here is Gerald's post about the need for an alternative elite.
http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2007/04/alternative-elite-needed-for-spores.html