[This is part of the book: Basis Of Singaporean Spirit - People Power, click here to go to the main page]
Singapore is a small country with a very short history. The main political party is People Action Party (PAP).
PAP has been the only party to form the core of the Singapore Government since the first day of Singapore's Independence; however, their support is on the decline. Singapore has only 3 Prime Ministers (PMs) to-date.
Taking a closer look at their characters, we can easily see the reasons why PAP support is on the decline.
First PM: MM Lee Kuan Yew (LKY)
He was known to be a very strong and tough person. He knew that Singaporeans' support was crucial for his success, and he knew very well that as long as he did the right thing, Singaporeans would support him.
In his rally speech on SIA Pilots Strike in 1980, he specifically mentioned the support from Singaporeans:
"... I gave them (SIA pilots) a choice: continue this and I will by every means at my disposal, teach you andget the People of Singapore help me teach you a lesson you wouldn't forget. And I am prepared to start all over again. Or stop it..."
Many didn't like his way of treating opposition parties, but he did the basis of a leader well - He valued us, and he delivered.
In one of his later interviews, he mentioned:
"They want jobs, if they don't get jobs, and they have no income, and they can't feed their families, we have a revolution!"
"How does the voting another man to be the government and he can't produce the jobs, how does that help you?"
Apart from that, in his vision for Singapore in the earlier days, he mentioned:
"... Keep Singapore happy and make the people feel that they are wanted, not step children or step brothers but one in the family, and a very important member of the family..."
Today, do you think Singaporeans are worried about jobs? Do you think Singaporeans are treated as important members of the family?
Second PM: ESM Goh Chok Tong (GCT)
He was softer than LKY, not by nature, but by decision. He decided as a PM, he needed to soften the approach LKY took.
Despite this, he still protected the People and made us proud. The Michael Fay[i] incident was a good proof of his brilliance.
In one of the interviews, he mentioned:
"... on the longer terms, it was good for us, that Singapore is prepared to stand-up against mighty America."
Many didn't like his 'HDB upgrading carrots'[ii], but he did the basis of a leader well - He protected the sovereignty of Singapore.
Another thing that he did well is the "Public Service for The 21st Century (PS21)", he revolutionised the public services, which provided us with great e-services that we had today.
Those who didn't understand Singapore would feel that Singaporeans are cowards, but Kishore Mahbubani (Former Ambassador to UN), answered this very clearly in History Of Singapore (Discovery Channel):
"They (Singaporeans) have experienced the most dramatic increase in standard of living that any people have experienced, probably ever since the beginning of man. And then you ask these people: Why aren't you revolting? Why aren't you going out on the street? But why should they?"
Today, have our standard of living changed for the better?
Now, let's take a look at our current Prime Minister, in which you will see the huge contrast.
Third PM - PM Lee Hsien Loong (LHL)
His approach is unclear, but generally viewed as anti-Singaporeans.
Firstly, why would anybody support a leader who kept labelling his People as racists, xenophobes and bigots?
Over time, context will be lost, but labels will remain. Nowadays, whenever people are unhappy with Singaporeans, the quick reasoning will be "because Singaporeans are Xenophobic...".
Anton Casey's audacity was fuelled by all these. If this is not stopped, more and more Anton Casey will come our way. Do you think this is the type of Singapore we want?
Secondly, after the Little India Riot, rather than condemning the act strongly (as was done for SIA Pilots Strike), in the interview with Channel 8, PM Lee compared the crime rate of Singaporeans with those workers and concluded that those workers have lower crime rate than Singaporeans.
This is totally inappropriate; such comparison should not even have been made in the first place.
When People are worried about not having money to fund a university degree, the advice given was "degrees are not important". On the other hand, we have Sex Blogger being granted scholarship; we have Mr 'Dog' being granted scholarship. Of course, we have to welcome the new addition to our Foreign Talent pool - Mr Yang Yin. Can't you see that the problem we have today is not Xenophobia but Xenomania instead?
If PM Lee continued to subscribe to foolish ideas such as those from Calvin Cheng, suggesting that today's issues are that of bread-and-butter or due to the "fight for Western liberal democracy" (see my response to him), then PM Lee deserved to fail and to be labelled as a CBL PM.
The basis of the problem is very simple, let's recall Kishore Mahbubani's speech below.
PM Lee, what do you think the life of Singaporeans had become after you came on-board? How much do you value Singaporeans? "Today, Singaporeans have experienced the most dramatic DECREASE in standard of living that any people have experienced, probably ever since the beginning of man. And then you ask these People: Why ARE YOU revolting? Why ARE YOU going to Hong Lim Park? But why SHOULDN'T they?
Can you see the basis of the problem now?
Had PM Lee put Singaporeans' interest in the first place, as what the previous two PMs did, the situation would be very different today.
BOSS Wisdom: "The basis of a pilot is to fly the plane. What is the use of a pilot who refused to fly the plane? The basis of a leader is to protect his People. What is the use of a leader who refused to protect his People?" - BOSS
When pilots refused to fulfil the basis, this is what Mr Lee Kuan Yew did:
In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's speech, do you know why he mentioned "start all over again"? This is because he understood the Importance of Basis, when the basis is wrong, nothing will be right. Think of basis as the foundation of a building. From Mr Lee Kuan Yew's viewpoint above, if the foundation is wrong, and the architect refuses to correct it, it is better to get another architect to redo the foundation then to build on a shaky one.
Many people admired Mr Lee Kuan Yew and viewed him as a role model. So what do you think Mr Lee Kuan Yew would do if he had a leader who is Xenomania and refused to fulfil the basis of a leader?
[Side Notes: I understand there are people who are against LKY as well as GCT. There are also controversies on the "To Singapore, with Love" by Tan Pin Pin. However, please note that this book is about the "basis", and looks at issues from the People's perspective (non-politically) so as to explain why more and more Singaporeans are abandoning PAP]
---------
[i] Michael Fay vandalised in Singapore and was caned. Clinton came down to plead for exemption from caning. Number of strokes were reduced, but not exempted.
[ii] 'HDB Upgrading Carrots' is an election tactics PAP used. If you vote for PAP, PAP will invest in upgrading your neighbourhood. By the way, please note that the investment money is from Singapore, not from the PAP party itself.
Basis of a Singapore Spirit (BOSS)
*The writer blogs at http://basisofsingaporeanspiritboss.blogspot.com/