Bloody Bullshit!

My favourite magazine saying sorry because they made a claim that the CEO of Temasek Holdings was appointed through corrupt nepotistic practices instead of the oft claimed reasons of meritocracy?

Well, firstly, something like that can’t possibly be debated. How do you define meritocracy in the Singaporean context anyway?

I am sure our PM’s wife is a perfectly capable candidate for handling the company, just as I am sure many other people out there are, too. That she was chosen for her abilities is not the question. What I find amusing, however, is the fact that, since Temasek owns and runs (directly or indirectly) so many of the country’s largest enterprises and industries, why should it be wrong for them to want to keep control within the Lee family.

Who essentially run the country.

Oh bosh, there is no room for denial, we are an autocracy, and we’re proud of it. Look at how frequently essays comparing the effectiveness of Democratic political systems to Autocratic ones constantly mention Singapore as a ‘bright and shining example’ of such a political regime.

I am a fervent believer in the fact that too many cocks spoil the broth and prolonged political campaigning is a waste of money.

That the fact that Mdm. Ho, being part of the Lee Family, had something to do with her appointment as CEO is, in my opinion, undeniable. And it makes economic sense. It is fair that she is chosen, simply because it allows the government the very necessary control over what constitutes a huge amount of government investment.

The truth is, anyone else there could have been appointed, and they would have just as equally made both good and bad decisions. But a lot of managerial cost would have been cut down simply because of the close relationship between the CEO of Temasek and the PM. Her capacity for individual achievement, which is what meritocracy is all about anyway, would be more that that of someone else, simply because she can better co-operate with the government. Because she knows what they want; and they have pretty much gotten it right so far at what’s good for the country.

Goddamnit, doesn’t anyone know the value of teamwork any longer?

And here, we must go back to the old debate of whether the government is corrupted in the first place. It might be, I am sure the Lee family have their own personal well-being and ambitions for the country in their agendas that are not necessarily homogenously wanted by all citizens. But while I am usually more akin to understanding intents rather then judging consequences, the result of their rule, corrupted or not (who judges what corruption is anyway?) is an eerily (politically) utopian country. With people who aren’t happy all the time, whose favorite activity after eating, shopping and pointless queuing is to grumble a lot, but are never really poor and have an acceptable standard of living.

However, what amazes me is that it would bother the government to require such a retraction and an apology. I’d like to believe that the Economist isn’t read by people who cannot think for themselves, and that most people would be able to clearly see that a hint of nepotism is most certainly present in such a situation, whether the Economist hinted at it or not. But that it is necessarily a bad thing is definitely debatable. Because if it is, then all of us should be absolutely afraid of the central planning that the country abides by. But we aren’t. For a large number of reasons, but mostly because the government knows that their own personal happiness comes from our happiness.

They are rich because the country is rich.

Oh, and this is totally unrelated, but more local oddities abound: Singapore not so Stright Laced.
Apparently, we might have a larger Gay population then London! Hurrah for sexual liberation.

xoxox