Wayne,

First of all let me congratulate you for a well-written piece; much of it resonates a patriotic chord in my heart.

Indeed I agree that the roles that ordinary Singaporeans have shifted to become a more consumer- than citizen-based motivation. I especially enjoyed the point that one can both citizen and consumer, depending on the circumstances. To further elaborate on the consumer viewpoint:-

1) What can teachers/my town council people/politicians do for me?
Indeed the notion of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" seems to be increasingly alien to Singaporeans (yes I recognise that this is an American term, but that's really beside the point). Who indeed should take responsibility for this entitlement mentality? Now that's another story for another time altogether.

2) What subject do I study that would earn me the most money and satisfaction?
My peers often relate "Who cares about history?" or "Painting/writing cannot make $$, be a doctor/lawyer/engineer instead!"
Yet it is precisely this lack of awareness of what's really possible among citizens that does the nation a great disservice. Why be like the others? Because apparently these 'others' seem to be doing rather well for themselves, with their good incomes, nice cars/condo/club membership etc. Credit card debt anyone? Some by-the-way advice on the bubble that is to come (or is it here already?): bubbles exist to be burst, so be forewarned...

3) How best can I spend my spare time to make myself happier?
The refrain from most quarters seems to be "If it makes economic sense to do X, then do it." Substitute X for any of the following:-
- applying for another job that pays 1% more $$ even though deep down in your gut you'll hate it but heck, simply kill time and claim days-off while waiting for the next CNY bonus to come along before moving on
- driving as close as possible to the next vehicle on the way to work without making contact, when gleefully grin and overtake when the startled driver jam-brakes
-filing for taxes a few days late, knowing that the taxman was denied the chance to claim your hard-earned money, with nothing more than a warning letter (do not, I repeat, *do not* try this next April...)
- gathering a group of friends at a coffee shop to complain about the latest revision of tax/transport charges/interest rates/price of coffee(!)
- going shopping/watching a movie after work or during weekends to numb the pain of being 'sponged' by the boss (no one cares about storyline anymore these days, do they?)
- taking a vacation overseas during CNY or, horrors, National Day (it's round the corner)
- placing one's parents in "retirement islands" when they are deemed too much of a liability...

... the only exception to this so called rule is #2; apparently much of this economic rationality flies out the window once one's neighbours/peers get a new condo/car/club membership ;-)

Evidently I don't subscribe to this framework, hence my comment to this post lol.

Since politicians should be saints in Singapore as the reasoning behind our popular political psyche goes, many Singaporeans similarly expect our politicians' sons to lead perfect lives and make the "best" decisions.

I'm not sure just how "popular" this notion is, and I'm similarly unsure just how "perfect" politicians are made out to be. If I'm not mistaken, many of the claims made, over the years, of politicians being squeaky clean have come from the establishment. Interestingly, history has shown up some of the errors in judgement made by our leaders; whether they have officially admitted them as such is another matter.

Imho, the recent incident has been blown out of proportion. Instances of officers going AWOL have occurred before, and we won't expect much newsprint should lesser (non-commissioned) ranks blow the whistle through the proper channels. Who would more likely be viewed a citizen then? That the Lee family is full of strong characters who speak their minds is without question. And one would be naive to believe that there isn't the occasional disagreement between one of their number and some 'establishment figure' every now and then (Dr Lee v Phillip Yeo). To be fair, the family has largely kept out of the recent controversy, to date. Still it begs the question: why so much publicity over a routine incident?

An interesting point is: what if the *establishment* operated on a consumer rather than a citizen level? Would it be accurate to say that many of the our leaders have been reinforcing the consumerist refrain, besides the obvious ploys during election time? How would that serve to the advantage of the nation?

Cheers

Current assessments of the Li Hongyi incident are limited by several factors. As many bloggers have noted, we have only heard Li's side of the story, together with the official response from the army.

Without a response from the senior officers involved, it is difficult to decide exactly what motivated Li's mass email.

The most positive gloss of course is the one offered here: that Li was casting aside indifference to make a stand for the good of the country, willing to bear the consequences for doing so.

On the other end of the spectrum, the incident could be interpreted as a case of hubris, except of course one where the retribution does in fact turn out to be minimal.

Without fuller information on the individuals involved, we're left only with speculation.

Now if only there was a independent free press willing and able to investigate the matter...But perhaps that will have to wait till Li Hongyi decides that it is something he has a right to demand.

I'm sure he has his grandfather's email address.

Simpleway:

Sonny made a good point. Until this matter blows up, few even know the name of Li Hongyi and much less even now about the person, his pysche, ideals and motivational drive. Without such an insight of him, labelling him a hero or zero or otherwise is pure conjectiure. The situation is made more complex by the fact that he was
personally involved,or rather aggrieved, in the case. Also looking at the account of the case, he went out of his way to investigate and track the defaulting LTA over a period of weeks. Was he therefore on a vendatta, driven
by a sense of personal anger and retribution or by an altruistic sense of patriotism. Bystanders like us will never know or can say for sure. Except maybe his dad or grand dad. Did he acted impulsively in a moment of foolhardiness and recklessness. Or, with the lessons learnt from the infamous Miss Wee elitism episode, is it a more likelihood that LHY would have consulted or at least informed his dad of his intended email and the wide & long distribution list. If he indeed took the latter route, it becomes most interesting on what transpired and how much of what we saw LHY actually did came out from that consultation. The rest is then up to one's imgination on how the eventual deed was crafted and played out. But of course, that again is a conjecture.

One thing for sure. For the minor consequences that LHY had to suffer, intentionally or unintentionally, for him
the whole event fortuitously is, as an image PR expert will say, a coup in introducing him to the world at large with a bang and notice given of where and what he is going to do in the near future with a "I'll be Back" message.

Thanks for the continuing support. Glad you're enjoying my stuff. :)

- sgpolitics

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jldRWPJmdoM

Spursfan,

Thank you for your generous comments and insights. You have illustrated my points really well and I feel your anguish and also wish that more Singaporeans can reflect on the questions and examples you pointed out. Just a point - I didn't say that our politicians are perfect as they are made out to be. But I think Singaporeans have developed very high expectations of their politicians - whether deliberately through political manipulation or the effects of high growths in short periods of time. Of course, you have point out rightly that the rhetoric does diverges from reality.

simpleway,

Thanks for your comments. But I am not sure we can even assume that his son will tell his dad or if so, his dad would do something! I don't think we ever tell our dad everything that transpired during our national service days - and I am not really sure whether his act was even meant to be disseminated to the public.

Actually, what interests me more is not what really happen (we might never know as Sonny has pointed out)- but to see what is the public's reaction to this incident tell us about Singaporeans (or at least those who care about the incident).

Wayne,

Just a point - I didn't say that our politicians are perfect as they are made out to be.

Agreed that the statement is meant to be read as how Singaporeans in general perceive our leaders, and not necessarily as how you would view them personally.

But I think Singaporeans have developed very high expectations of their politicians - whether deliberately through political manipulation or the effects of high growths in short periods of time.

More plausibly, the founding leaders of 1965 had placed high priority on ensuring the survival of their ideology "in the name of survival of the nation". This cause has been (unexpectedly) successful especially when taking into consideration the paths of countries who were/are currently in the infancy of nationhood.

It would be fair imho to state that, in over 40 years of our recent history, we have not seen as severe a political challenge as that posed by the Socialists in the 1960s. In this context, strong economic growth has emerged as a (fortuitous?) effect of the resultant political vacuum in the legislature of this nation i.e. things could be accomplished more "efficiently" and (controversially perhaps?) more "effectively".

In the absence of a strong overt political counter-force, and in the presence of the potent by-product that is economic growth (especially in the 1970s and 1980s), an equally formidable if somewhat invisible force of lethargy among the populace has set in.

Consequently, public expectation has evolved to demand of the establishment high standards of *consumer* satisfaction, to which the latter is more than able (but increasingly less happy?) to provide. However, the nation continues to suffer because the public is not engaging (pressuring?) the establishment on *citizenship* issues. I do not see my contribution as a baby step towards citizenship by any stretch of the imagination; what matters is what readers do with my humble observations.

As a citizen I have a right to demand high standards from the leaders of the SPF... What with police officers sleeping on the job, parking illegally, etc...

I emailed the traffic police several times about a long standing illegal parking problem near my home. I sent the email up to commander level, but received no further response after several rounds of email. Even when they responded, they would usually just give canned replies like "we are looking into this matter" blah blah blah...

I suppose low standards are a thing that we have to get used to in Singapore's civil service. In other countries, we say "pay peanuts, get monkeys"... Here, we pay them good money but we still get the same monkeys.