I know, but I must say in my own defence.

Taken from http://kitana.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/why-singapore-inc-will-never-be-a-home/

I wonder why our government can tell us with one voice to stop complaining and whining and to accept policies which are all for the good of the economy, and on the other hand to tell us not to leave and to quit and to stay and that this is our home.

Yes. Somehow it is heartwarming that i am not the only Singaporean unable to reconcile the two, as i have said many times thus far.

If we organise a peace march, we constitute an illegal procession. If we speak out on the internet, there is a possibility that we bring prejudice to the maintenance of harmony. We have no unions, we have no civil activists. All of such are considered trouble makers and a threat to security and society. Interestingly, Hong Kong, our biggest competitor in Asia, allows for protests and civil activists, and yet it is no less uncompetitive. Oh, and they can protest against their GST increase. This means that we have no say in how our country is run, no say in how our money will be used, no say in anything at all. We cannot do anything much; we have been handicapped.

How easy it is for the government to quell us all, for the Singaporean instinct of pragmatism to shut everyone up. We make their job so much easier by abiding by even some of the more ridiculous laws. We draw our own "OB Markers". And i find it telling that that term, coined by the government to shut us up has passed into everyday Singaporean speech and is used by us all. Orwell was not wrong when he said governments influence mindsets with their words, but oh how insidiously it is done!

No countries and no politicians and no governments are altruistic. There is always a profit-motive involved. But there is always the power of the people, the civil activist; those who ensure that somehow, something is going right. Somehow, at the end of the day the country is working for the people, and not for itself. In those countries, the country is the people and the people are the country; there is no separate legal entity.

When the author said this, Kafka's The Trial came to mind. This amazing book depicts a hopeless society that operates like a machine, where the law is akin to a steamroller - running over its citizens in a systematic manner and flattening those who get in its path. And it is able to do this, for the society has come to a point where the law ( there is ostensibly no government, the law is its own entity) is no longer accountable to the citizens in any fashion. Yet, the protagonist Josef K. stays on in that country and tries to work the opaque, in navigable system and in the end he is executed.

Is this the fate that awaits us all as Singaporeans who "stay" ?
And it seems like all of us Singaporeans don't know, but innately we the Japanese proverb, "the nail that sticks out will be hammered down" resonates loudly in that hollow within us. So we keep our mouths shut and our eyes closed and we don't push for change. That's why we satisfy our inner liberal who has become claustrophobic in this society, who wants freedom and change, with the word "pragmatism"

I have heard many opinions, in my few years, which are perpetuated along the lines of, "When Lao Lee dies, we will see the light once more." This is an example of Singaporean simple mindedness at its utmost. Somehow, as one people (one nation, one Singapore), we are unable to comprehend the complexities of the situations that govern our everyday lives. Let me let you, my fellow Singaporean, in on a secret.

Lao Lee did consolidate power. He did do it for his own ends. But now that power is in the hands of the party. He was chosen, rather like Big Brother was chosen, in 1984, to be a focal point for love and hate from the citizens. Because it is so much easier to love a man than a lightning bolt. He garnered the affections of the masses with his charisma and his moving speeches, his orchestrated crying on national television. The man can play the role of the hurt leader giving the rallying cry to his people very well.

However, simultaneously he shaped a "culture of pragmatism" in Singapore, and this culture has become to strong and so self-propagating that a small event like the death of one man is not going to change it. This culture involves a series of self-checks by the people, aided by checks from the government and the making of examples of dissenters. The way I see it, there is little difference between Jeremy Bentham's ideal prison, "the Panopticon" and Singapore.

The Panopticon involves the creation of a circular prison cell, of which the governing idea is self-check. Each cell has a window into which guards can peer from a central tower, located in the middle of the Panopticon. However, in-mates cannot see who is watching, and when. So they keep quiet, do as they are told and check their own actions. I see the culture of pragmatism as the mindset that has been cultivated into the prisoners, "if you want to prosper you will shut up"

So we go about our business, for we do not know who's watching, when and how. And we execute the inner liberal every day, as we set out to race towards the ideals that our government has been kind enough to set forth for us - The 5C's.

Thank goodness this phrase has become almost obsolete

The way I see it, the problem now is: Why hasn't this mindset followed suit? Why are we still being kept quiet with the promise of material comfort in exchange for civil liberties?

And who agrees that this is a fair exchange.

To conclude let me clarify this; I do not believe that we are parallel to the worlds of The Trial and 1984. But there is no doubt left in my mind that that is the direction we are heading in. However, we have something they do not. Hope. So let us change our passive culture, our gratuitously repressed natures and seize the day.

What are they going to do? Throw us all in jail?

11:10 am;can you keep a secret?