Love, finally

26 September 2012. I finally found love. Love I can be myself completely with, love with whom I can fulfil all my dreams and aspirations with. Love, which I'll always treasure.

And in case you see this post dear, yes it's for you.

 

My two shining lights of GE 2011

As Singapore rolls along towards what perhaps has been its most complex GE since Independance, I thought I would take myself out from the heat of voting sentiments, and just share about two individuals, who have been my shining lights for this Election. Within the context of Singapore's heavily partisan political backdrop, they have emerged from their respective political affliations, and truly touched the hearts and minds of many. They are Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr George Yeo.

I will put my head out and say this: The reason why PAP still has an even chance in Aljunied today, is largely down to Mr Yeo. Some will see it as a political strategy, gimmick or even joke, but I think that to many Singaporeans out there, we genuinely feel that in the event that he does not get elected into Parliament, Mr Yeo would be the best person to become President of our nation. Because, he embodies alot of what Singapore stands for. Different people would perhaps have different reasons, but for me, two stand out.

Facebook is by no means the authoratative medium of communication, and without doubt, it only involves a certain segment of society. But in terms of duration of account, and even more importantly, degree of communication, Mr Yeo has easily been the most 'connectable' MP in Singapore, light years ahead all other electoral candidates, PAP AND Opposition alike. And this is in spite of being Foreign Minister! One can put on a front, to seem interested in outreach and communication, for a day, a week, months even, but certainly not years! Even if he did start of with any sort of political agenda, it has certainly developed into a true interest in reaching out and being reachable. From his many uploaded pictures, his involvment in actual ground outreach and community events are also evident.In this regard, Mr Yeo has demonstrated through his consistent action, that he is genuinely interested in the general public.

The second has to do with his pioneering involvement in the starting up of Nalanda University. Mr Yeo is a devout Catholic, Nalanda University is an ancient Buddhist University, for which Mr Yeo is part of the team spearheading its modern revival. Of course, one can see this as part of his job as Foreign Minister, but from many of his interviews on the project, I sense a keen intellectual and social interest in a religion separate from his own. Singapore is multi-religious, we believe in living in harmony, and to do that, one needs to be genuinely not just respectful, but appreciative of other religions and races, and I think in this respect, Mr Yeo embodies this too.

I move on now to Mr Chiam See Tong. To me, Mr Chiam See Tong is no politician. A quick historical check on Wikipedia will tell you the following: He started the SDP, but got usurped by his protege and kicked out of the party. He then spearheaded the formation of the SDA, but was then again challenged by his Council and relieved of his role of Chairman. This is not a record any political leader would be proud of, and would put his political leadership acumen into severe questioning. His Opposition counterpart in parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang, incidentally has a huge amount of such acumen.

But for me, Mr Chiam stands hands and shoulders above any politician we have seen. He is the shining beacon of what it means to be a true servant-leader (as much as I hate the term), who has put the interests of others, far, far beyong his own interests. Instead of justifying this by stating what he has done, I will give two examples of what he has not done.

Mr Goh Chok Tong recently told the press that Mr Tan Jee Say had made a mistake joining the SDP, and told him to 'ask Mr Chiam about SDP'. The obvious reference was the removal of Mr Chiam from the very party he had formed. One could hardly blame Mr Chiam for holding strong grievance against his former counterparts in SDP, in SDA, whom at one point of time or another, had rode his very wings into politics but eventually left him out. But if one were to trace back his rally speeches, press interviews etc, one would be hard-pressed to find any single stinging criticism Mr Chiam has made of his former counterparts. He has never put down any other opposition party done during the Elections, because he truly believes, I guess, in the importance of the unity of the opposition to be a voice of democracy for Singaporeans. Nothing can be more inciting than being 'betrayed', but Mr Chiam has risen against his personal grievances, in the interests of the people.

The other thing Mr Chiam has not done, is tell the world, that for 27 years, he conducted his MPS in a makeshift cubicle at a void deck. He never made it into an election rallying point, when one can only imagine its potency. It was only made known when reporters came across it. Why hadnt he used it as cannon fodder against the PAP? I can only hazard a few plausible guesses. Firstly, he felt that it was a trivial issue which could spiral into gutter politics, and take away from the real issues of the day. Second, he felt that if it was about serving the people, it really doesnt matter where iti is, as long as his heart is in it and he gets the job done, and if there were excess funds, it should always go to some other use which would benefit the larger community. This is the hallmark of a responsible politician, whose only interest , are to his residents.

Today, Mr Chiam's limitations are clear for all to see at the rallies. He is barely audible at times, but to me, his every word, rings home louder than thunder, because it is, right from the heart.

I dont know if partisan politics and a partisan electorate will continue to stay in Singapore. I really hope it does not. Political Parties are a source of stability, but also create huge rigidity when in partisan societies. It takes away from not just the policies and plans from the party, but more importantly, the many individuals the party puts forward as its candidates. Whether they win at these Elections notwithstanding, I feel that both Mr Chiam and Mr Yeo have proven through their many years of track record, to be a refreshing breed of leaders in Singapore. Leaders from the heart, who are unifying giants across this partisan political landscape.

Singapore a la Barcelona.. Mes que un ciudad

The last time any reference was drawn between football and Singapore as a country, was probably after France 98, where we were told we could aspire to be like France, a Footballing Champion of Immigrants. Not sure if such a reference would ever be made again, if not for laughs after a pint. It's probably in quite half a drunken state now, that I try to make another reference between football and Singapore. My point of reference? Barcelona F.C.

I enjoy football, and very much appreciate its ability to ignite the excitement of peoples all over the world. But I'm not going to draw parallels as to how Singapore can become a great footballing nation. I'm going one step further, to draw parallels as to how Singapore can be simply, a great nation. I've long been bugged by my disability to explain my gut feel, that above all else, it is the sense of belonging, the common identity, and the simple hardwork of commoners, all these soft factors that make a great nation. Not the high annual GDP growths (i.e. casino opening), not the high paying jobs in knowledge(i.e. financial) industries, nor the high-intellectual foreign geniuses and certainly not the internalised international concepts and methodologies of innovation-led productivity. It is not that all these arent essential, on the contrary , they are quite our survival tools to a successful city. However, if the fundamentals of any nation are built on these, then the success of the nation will be bobbling around the wave of economic cycles - up and down, prone to capsize. Not great at all.

But the ship is just a hypothetical analogy, not convincing to any less of a romantic than me. So I was stuck for many years, until Pep Guardiola, Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol, a certain Lionel Messi and Barcelona F.C. came around.

Barcelona F.C. is probably recognised as the greatest footballing team in the world right now, if not in history. They swept all domestic, European and international honours in 2009, were close enough in 2010, and look imperious again in 2011. In 2010's FIFA World Player of the Year Awards, the first three (i.e.Messi, Iniesta, Xavi) were monopolized by Barcelona. Before anyone gets carried away by the individual genius of these three players, all three of them attributed their success to one key factor: the teamwork and camaraderie built up since their youth playing days at the Barcelona Academy, La Masia. Another key attribute shined through their interviews, and that of their team-mates and manager: their pride and sense of belonging and passion towards not just Barcelona F.C. the club, but the city of Barcelona and its citizens. Afterall, the slogan of Barcelona, Mes que un club,means just that - more than a club.

With the exception of Messi, the other players at Barcelona would probably not have the greatest shout-outs for greatest talents in football. In contrast with the Galactico era of Real Madrid, with a star-studded team of World/European Footballer of the Years, i.e. Zidane, Ronaldo, Figo, Beckham, or even the current team of Kaka, Cristiano Ronaldo and the Galactico Coach Mourinho, Barcelona's team does pale in individual brillance. Yet, how could a team of largely home-born, with the exception of Argentinian Messi (and the Spanish do not have the best footballing pedigree, not by World Cup Records, where they lag Brazil, Italy, Argentina, even Germany), become the best side in the world? Not the high net-worth and highly paid foreign geniuses, not the state-of-the-art managerial techniques, and certainly not the high-interest bank rolling towards bankruptcy loans. Because in the final analysis, the single greatest driving force of productivity, innovation, and greatness, is not all of these, but a common passion.

If there are any calls for facts and figures, lets take 4 v 4. Zidane, Ronaldo, Figo and Beckham have between themselves played for at least 10 different teams. Messi, Iniesta, Xavi and Puyol have a grand total of one. Ok, these players are not even close to retiring, so its an unfair comparison. Let's just take Cristiano and Kaka then, between just two of them, already 5 teams.

My point being? It is the the common dogged hardwork, common understanding built up over years of communication, the productivity of passion and above all, the shared involvement and belonging in place and community that makes a great club. Barcelona may not win the Champions League or La Liga every year, but as long as the social fabric and teamwork ethic remains rooted within the Club's Academy and Management Philosophy, the greatness will remain, year after year. Ditto for a great nation. Mes que un ciudad ...or More than a city.

And, with this in place, one doesnt even need to fear foreign talent leaving for their home countries. Heck, Argentina didnt win the World Cup, did they? Spain did.

Singapore and our Neighbours

Reading excerpts from MM's latest book published in ST, I was reminded of the hard truth of Singapore's vulnerability, where 'none of our neighbours truly wish us well'. Through his 50 over years of statesmanship, MM's comments were a stark reminder of the need for Singapore and Singaporeans to always persevere towards its quest of not just flourishing, but survival itself. His examples of neighbouring leaders including Mahathir and Sukarno drove home this point well.

And I agree fully with MM's view on our vulnerability. However, I fear that it may be a partial perspective, and if read without further thought, would be misinterpreted and manifested in completely wrong attitudes among less discerning readers. If any reader walked away thinking that all our neighbouring countries want us dead, and that manifests into hate, and disgust, combined with arrogance towards their jealousy, then we would be in trouble.

The truth is, it may not be in the short-term interests of political leaders of our neighbouring countries to wish us well, and there might well be a genuine case of jealousy and hoping Singapore fails. Having to protect their countries well-being, leaders might resort to measures and policies which are aimed at hurting Singapore. However, the views of leadership do not represent the entire country. Those of us with friends from ASEAN countries, would be able to vouch that many of them have no vendetta against Singapore, in fact, they probably think well of Singapore. While the majority of their fellow countrymen might not share their liking and admiration for us, they would at most be apathetic about the state of international affairs. To say that citizens of our neighbouring countries all wish we fail, would be a gross misrepresentation.

Someone might argue, that in international affairs, it is no use what the majority of the people think, but the thoughts and actions of those in charge. And if upon taking on leadership and the need to safeguard personal interests, leaders of neighbouring countries have to inevitably adopt policies against the interests of Singapore, it doesnt matter what their original attitudes towards Singapore were, before getting into power. Granted the validity in this argument, it doesnt take away the fact that a general mistrust of all our neighbours based on this premise, would only result in further misunderstanding not just at the political, but also the civic/community level.

My takeaway from MM's comments would be, we as Singaporeans will need to be vigilant and committed to the survival of our country, recognising that the neighbouring political climate may not be in our favour as yet. This should be manifested in working hard and striving towards our economic, defense and social needs. On the other hand however, as normal citizens, we should treat our counterparts from neighbouing countries with sincerity and goodwill, and form true friendships with them. Nation states may disagree over short term strategic benefits, but this may one day, be counter-balanced by a cooperative and mutually understanding civic community.

Uncovering the Fundamentals of Human Nature - The Gross National Happiness Index (GNH)

It seems that the political world is finally taking to the idea of GNH or' Gross National Happiness' - a quantitative index of psychological well-being put at the heart of policy-making. Since the concept was first created by the 4th King of Bhutan HM Jigme Singye Wangchuck to guide development in his nation, Canada, France and the UK have recently announced initiatives for an official Happiness Index to guide policy-making in their countries.

Many people know about the GNH, through the romanticized viewing-glass of scenic Bhutan, the Kingdom amidst the mountains and clouds, where its people sing and dance the songs of generations past, living a life of tranquility and harmony with nature. I make no qualms that I am very much such a 'rustic idealist' as well, whose lifelong dream is still to find myself by the little stream in the rural wilderness, eating my peanuts as time and breeze go by. However, if one's understanding of GNH were to stop at this idealized, and rather contentious picture, it would be a great injustice to the many social and psychological researchers who have put effort into the GNH, to turn a conceptual aspiration, into a quantitative index which can be used as a policy-making tool all around the world, for different communities, across the rural-urban spectrum.

It is through the immaculate understanding of human nature, woven into the very fundamentals of what it measures, how it is measured, and why it is measured, which differentiates the GNH from any other quantitative measure of 'development'. I can only share on a few key ones which resonated strongly when I first read them.

Sustainable Happiness. During the consumption of goods and services, the measure of what gives the people happiness will be relative, either to what others are consuming or to what one had the year before. This fact implies that there are negative externalities to happiness associated with consumption that needs to be curbed. As contrasted against such happiness achieved through external stimuli, there is a contrary tradition that point to a different source of happiness, showing that pleasurable feelings will be generated by shutting down sensory inputs and the related mental chatter. This involves secular meditation whereby the individual experiences the subject itself, as opposed to the subject perceiving external stimuli.Long enough meditation may lead the brain structure (neural pathways) to be changed such that calmness and contentment will be a personality trait. In other words, the mental faculties can be trained towards happiness. From a contemplative perspective, extreme reliance on externally derived pleasure distracts the individual from inner sources of happiness, elevating the latter.

Interdependent Happiness. In order to achieve collective happiness, the principle of interdependence needs to be taken on by everyone. Members of a GNH society would cultivate a third eye, which can elevate our vision beyond individual self-interest to address the happiness of all, as a collective goal. Happiness blossoms through enhanced relationships, arising unbidden when relationships improve. In this sense, the whole of development is a progress in relationships, not of individuals.

Sufficient Happiness. The Gross National Happiness Index takes the position that beyond a certain point, we dont need to keep adding in higher achievements to the quality of life mechanically; we confine our attention somewhat to a middle band of achievements that contribute significantly to human well-being for most people. Hence, having a much longer than sufficient education-span, does not compensate for a much lower than sufficient community vitality. Sufficiency across the key dimensions is the aggregate of GNH, rather than an absolute weighted average of the different dimensions.

These fundamentals guide the selection of indicators used to measure GNH across the nine dimensions of: Psychological Well-Being, Time Use, Community Vitality, Culture, Health, Education, Environmental Diversity, Living Standard, Governance.

I must admit that I have quoted in large sections directly from the GNH website in the identification of the fundamentals above, in my attempt to give a quick snapshot on the GNH. However, I recognize the potential incoherence of simply extracting bits out of the complete whole, and I would strongly urge anyone with any interest at all in the concept of GNH, or the understanding of happiness, to go directly to the website: www.grossnationalhappiness.com to discover more. It is very wordy and can be quite difficult to grasp at times, but it is well worth the effort to think through, even if you may have differing views.