actionslavehero

TRANSCRIPT OF TV DEBATE ON THE ELECTED PRESIDENT PROPOSAL - 1988

Transcribed by Nathaniel Koh on 18th & 19th April 2009 from Lee Kong Chian Reference Library, Level 11, ENGLISH 324.7 ELE. Reposted with permission.

To me, this debate highlights my frustration with the current political landscape. The Opposition completely misses the point here. JBJ pushing for all the power to remain vested in parliament which is almost completely controlled by the PAP anyway (unanimous agreement in a parliament is a ridiculous notion) and CST insisting on hypotheticals.

Should have shot the PAP down not on this proposed example of a check and balance but to question if enough checks and balances are instituted. How is the President elected? Will he really be chosen by the people? Through what processes (hopefully independent) can the President say no to parliament? What happens when he says no to the PAP, will the PAP accept the refusal? What other checks should the President be able to make?

The opposition failed to recognize that having an independent President, elected by the people, is a good thing. On hindsight, looking at the tribulations that President Ong Teng Cheong underwent, more should have be done to enshrined the powers of the President to act as a check on Parliament. And more done to ensure that the President is really popularly elected rather then vetted by a select group of citizens before being allowed to be a candidate.

I was 5 when this happened. Wished I could have watched it.

---
INTRODUCTION

NARRATOR: This morning, a TV debate was recorded between the People’s Action Party and Opposition parties on the proposal for an Elected President. Mr Goh Chok Tong and Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong represented the People’s Action Party. Mr JB Jeyaratnam represented the Workers’ Party, and Mr Chiam See Tong, the Singapore Democratic Party. The moderator was Professor KS Sandhu.

We bring you now the debate in English, unedited.

Rules of the TV debate: The duration of the debate will not exceed 60 minutes. 50% of the time will go to the People’s Action Party and the other 50% to the Opposition parties as a group. Timekeepers will alert participants when their time is up. Format of the debate: The debate will start with opening statements. The People’s Action Party will be given 6 minutes, and the Opposition parties as a group 6 minutes - 3 minutes for each Opposition party. This will be followed by a debate on positions. The People’s Action Party will have 12 minutes to cross-examine the positions of the Opposition parties. Then, the Opposition parties will cross-examine the People’s Action Party’s position for 12 minutes. 6 minutes will be allotted for the moderator to seek clarifications. The debate will end with closing statements. The Opposition parties first. They will be given 6 minutes - 3 minutes for each party. The People’s Action Party representatives will then have 6 minutes to make their closing statements. The moderator’s ruling regarding duration, relevancy to the issue debated, and other related matters will be final.

MODERATOR (MOD): As all Singaporeans know, the government last month published a White Paper to provide for an Elected President to safeguard accumulated national financial assets and the integrity of the public services. Also, that this proposal has become an election issue. Indeed, there have been calls for a TV debate on this by Opposition parties. Responding to such calls and associated public interest, the SBC took the initiative to organise such a debate and approached the PAP and the main Opposition parties to participate in it.

Accordingly, to participate in this debate on the Elected President proposal are on the one hand the PAP, and on the other, the Opposition Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties. Representing the PAP are Mr Goh Chok Tong and BG Lee Hsien Loong. While the Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties are represented by Mr JB Jeyaratnam and Mr Chiam See Tong respectively.

The debate will comprise essentially of three parts: opening statements by the competing parties, followed by rebuttals and clarifications, and finally, closing statements. I’m the moderator, and my job is to enforce the rules agreed upon as well as to keep the debate on schedule. In this regard, the participants have been again reminded that time is of the essence and any unnecessary deviation from the topic under debate would be a golden opportunity missed. With these guidelines, it is time to get the debate underway. To do so, I have great pleasure now in inviting Mr Goh Chok Tong to make the opening statements on behalf of the PAP. Mr Goh.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

GOH CHOK TONG (GCT): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Elected President is to protect our reserves. These are your hard earned savings, your CPF money, which is looked after on your behalf by the government. Presently, the only safeguard is the integrity of the PAP government. If an irresponsible, unscrupulous and dishonest government should one day come into power, they can spend your money without telling you about it. When you retire at 55 and try to withdraw your CPF, it will be gone. Hence our proposal to create an Elected President.

First, to safeguard reserves and secondly, to protect the integrity of the civil service. How can it do this? The Elected President must consent if the government wants to spend reserves which it itself has not accumulated, to make certain key appointments, for example, appointments to members of the Public Service Commission or judges of the Supreme Court. The Elected President will have the custodial powers, custodial powers to say no in these two key areas, and the moral authority to block the elected government again in these two areas. He will not have the right to initiate policies himself even in these two areas, be given any powers in other unrelated areas, or be an executive President, like the US or French President. It is a two-key safeguard mechanism. To unlock the reserves and take out the money, both keys must be used. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet hold one key, and the President, the other. The veto powers over key appointments are necessary to protect the judiciary, the SAF and other key institutions from political corruption, to prevent an unscrupulous government from packing the Public Service Commission or the MAS with corrupt appointees who will do their bidding and spend the reserves secretly without telling you or even the Elected President.

The Opposition have claimed that the Elected President proposal is designed for Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In fact, the PM has told the Cabinet that he was not interested in the job. He wanted to say this publicly. I have told him not to do so because I know that there are many Singaporeans who would like him to be the first Elected President, and anyway, he should not close the option, because I believe he has a lot to contribute to Singapore even after he has stepped down as Prime Minister. He is a national resource. The Elected President proposal is a major change in our Constitution. That is why the PAP wants it to be thoroughly discussed and debated and endorsed by Singaporeans. The government has been thinking about this, about how to safeguard your reserves since 1982. The Elected President was first publicly discussed in 1984 before the last general elections, and the government has deliberately released the White Paper on the Elected President before this general election so that it will be fully debated before the electorate. After the general elections, the government will table the bill in parliament on the Elected President. The proposal will be put to a select committee so that more views can be heard. Now, I do not believe in government by referendum, but if despite the prolonged consultation, at the end of the process, there is no consensus on the Elected President, then despite my reservations, we will put the question to a referendum.

In 1984, both Workers’ Party and SDP campaigned on the platform of denying the PAP a two-thirds majority, so that they could not amend the Constitution to create an Elected President. They failed. The government had the time and the majority to push the Elected President proposal through this year before we call for an election. It chose not to. Why should it want to ram through the Elected President proposal or any other hidden proposals after the general elections? Why should it want to do so when we have not done so before this? Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY

MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.

JB JEYARATNAM (JBJ): The Workers’ Party’s position is very clear. The issue is not whether there should be adequate safeguards to protect the financial assets of the country, that there should be adequate safeguards to prevent an irresponsible government from squandering our financial assets is accepted by the Party without question. But the Party believes that already we have adequate safeguards in our institution of parliamentary government. The issue is whether the supremacy of parliament, the body of the people as the final check over the government, should be diminished, whether the parliament should surrender its role and its powers to one man over whom there would be no control under these proposals. The Party is firmly convinced that government should remain accountable to the people through parliament. That is the essence of parliamentary government. We accepted this when we became self-governing. The fact that hitherto parliament has not been effective as a check on government is not due to any weakness in the system, it is due to the PAP’s deliberately followed policy of reducing parliament to a rubberstamp of the government, by blocking the growth of any opposition in parliament.

Now that the PAP perceives that parliament may begin to play its rightful role with the emergence of an effective opposition, the PAP proposed to circumvent this by this plan to transfer parliament’s powers to the man they have already decided should become President. Under the proposals, the President will not only control our financial assets, he will be given powers over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and key personnel in the public service. The magnitude of this power cannot be exaggerated. The President can under these proposals thwart a government elected by the people from carrying out the mandate of the people. These are fundamental changes to how we govern ourselves, and if these changes are to be made, the people should be first asked in a referendum whether they agree to surrender their powers to one man over whom they would have no control once he is installed until his term is over. Remember, he is not accountable to parliament. What the proposals do is to lock the people out of what is theirs.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

MOD: Mr Jeyaratnam, we must stop. Mr Chiam.

CHIAM SEE TONG (CST): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We must first crystallise the issue in this debate. The PAP is saying that we need an Elected President to safeguard our national reserves. To the SDP, safeguarding the reserves is not the issue. The issue of safeguarding our financial reserves is only a deception, a distraction, a diversion from the real issue, and that is the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President. This can easily be proven if the PAP dares to hold a national referendum. At this referendum, the question can squarely be put to the people of Singapore, quote, “Do you want an Elected President?” unquote. I know the majority of people of Singapore will say no to that question. A national referendum must be held as the issue of the Elected President is so vital to our political system. It concerns the survival of democracy and the survival of our parliamentary system as we know of it today. If the people of Singapore gives the PAP two-thirds majority at the polls, this will be the last time the people shall be voting under the parliamentary system as we know of it today. The real purpose of the PAP to introduce the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore effectively the one-man-one-vote system. Yes, the real purpose of installing an Elected President which has executive powers ultimately is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. The threat to the change to the one-man-one-vote system was made by the Prime Minister in the early morning hours of December 23rd 1984 after the last polling day. The people of Singapore must demand on a national referendum.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

MOD: Well, we have the opening statements. Now it is time for challenging the statements and rebuttals.

LEE HSIEN LOONG (LHL): If I may direct my first question to Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam, do you recall that in parliament on August the 12th, Mr Goh Chok Tong spoke on the subject of the Elected President, and asked you to confirm that you are in favour of making changes to our system in order to ensure that our reserves not be depleted.

CST: Yes.

LHL: And you said yes.

CST: Yes, we agree that there should be.

LHL: You agree there should be checks.

CST: There should be checks. We should have hundred, a thousand Gurka troops if you want to take care of our reserves.

LHL: It’s that simple.

CST: Eventually, these Gurka troops instead of taking care of the reserves; they will be imprisoning the people of Singapore. That is why we are concerned.

LHL: That is why we don’t have Gurka troops. Are you suggesting that?

CST: Well, take another example. If the government without me asking put ten policemen in front of my house. They say, the PAP says that ten policemen is to guard me for my safety, but I say no, they are to put me under house arrest. That is why I object to an Elected President.

LHL: You agree that it is necessary to safeguard the reserves.

CST: That is not the issue at the moment. The main issue is whether or not we want to deprive Singapore of our parliamentary system.

LHL: Do you also agree to the need to safeguard the civil service?

CST: By all means, civil servants, reserves, they must be safeguarded.

LHL: They must be protected, and some changes have been made to do so.

CST: But these two are not the issues at the moment.

LHL: But you have conceded. This is the purpose of the proposal.

CST: We are saying that the purpose of the proposal is to have an Elected President with executive powers, eventually leading us to a fall of government which we do not want, maybe a dictatorship, and then our reserves will really be lost then.

LHL: Can you explain how it will be possible for the President to have executive powers when all he can do is to say no to the government spending money which has been accumulated by previous governments, not by itself? It can tax, it can spend, it can plan, it can implement. The President has no say, but only protect money accumulated by previous governments, including CPF money.

CST: We all know the proposal, but our innermost fear is that when the PAP is threatened in 1992, and you have the majority, you have two-thirds majority, who will stop you from amending the Constitution further to hand over more executive powers to the President, internal security, finance, defense?

LHL: You therefore concede that the proposal does not contain executive powers, because you are talking about a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise.

CST: No, Mr Lee. We are going to establish something in our society, in our country, which is going to be there for ages to come, and we don’t know who is going to abuse that system that you are going to establish. What the people of Singapore is worried is the powers that will eventually end up in the hands of one person.

LHL: What about the powers which are presently proposed to be given to the Elected President? Do they or do they not constitute executive powers?

CST: Of course they do.

LHL: They do, because he can say no.

CST: Yes.

LHL: You are aware that we have a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: Well, if they are given discretionary powers, I think they are, but they are not real safeguards.

LHL: You are aware that there is a Presidential Council for Minority Rights. CST: What has the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, up to date, what has it done?

LHL: You know that…

CST: As far as I know, there is nothing effective about it.

LHL: Mr Chiam, can you answer the question?

GCT: Are you aware or not aware that there is?

CST: Of course. There was a big debate in the 60s on it.

LHL: You know that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights vets all bills before they are sent to the President.

CST: Well, I read my papers, parliamentary papers. Yes, of course. LHL: Yes. It has custodial powers. It can say no to bills if it deems them discriminatory.

CST: Discriminatory only in regard to certain matters of affecting the community, the community at the moment.

LHL: Yes, yes, in the same way as the…

CST: If there is going to be racial problems or disrupting racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Yes, it has the power.

CST: Yes. LHL: It is not an elected body. Is it an executive body?

CST: We are talking about electing an…installation of an Elected President, and here you are, you are diverting the issue by saying that there should be a person to take care of our national reserves and appointing of our civil servants. These are only as I have said, perhaps you do not understand me, a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that your government is going to install one person with executive powers, and you can please tell me whether or not there is any provisions to check parliament from further giving any more powers to the President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, Mr Chiam is being cross-examined. He should give the answer.

MOD: Yes, yes. Straight.

LHL: Is or is not the Presidential Council for Minority Rights an executive body? It has custodial powers. Does that make it an executive body?

CST: Well, there’s nothing…..

LHL: It doesn’t, so why not say so.

CST: It doesn’t say anything about, you know, stopping the use of reserves.

LHL: But it has powers. It can prevent parliament from passing bills, any bills.

CST: The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, its purpose is set up to ensure that no bills would disrupt our racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Correct, and the Elected President is set up to make sure that no bills or any other government measures would eat into reserves accumulated by previous governments. Specific purposes. Those are custodial powers, similar to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: No, they are not.

LHL: Does that make the Elected President an executive one?

CST: Yes, of course, as I have said so.

LHL: And the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is also an executive body?

CST: The fact that the President is able to stop the use of finance without….

MOD: Mr Chiam, I think we will get the debate going if you could answer his question directly, and then we can come back to your turn.

LHL: Are you opposed to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which has custodial powers?

CST: Well, there is no necessity…

LHL: You do not oppose that.

CST: There is no necessity for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. I was not in politics when it was formed.

LHL: You would get rid of it. Mr Jeyaratnam, you would surely agree with Mr Chiam that there is no need for such a Presidential Council or indeed any safeguards whatsoever to the system.

CST: So far, you…so far, there is no law which is passed in parliament which has been refused by Presidential Council except I know of one in which parliament overruled the Presidential Council in the GRC proposal, that is what has happened.

LHL: Is that true?

GCT: No, that’s not true.

CST: You have made laws that cut out the powers of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. That is what you have done.

MOD: That’s not the answer.

GCT: We haven’t heard the answer from Mr Chiam.

MOD: Do you want to respond, Mr Jeyaratnam?

JBJ: Was I asked a question?

LHL: Yes, you were asked a question. Do you agree with Mr Chiam that we should scrap the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it has an executive function?

JBJ: I think there is a confusion of thought here. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights protects the minorities’ rights, their culture, and their, you know, way of life. Now, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is not effective. Perhaps you have forgotten that parliament can override the presidential committee’s decision on any bill by itself passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority. Are you aware of that? So that the presidential committee is not effective. I, my Party, would like to see the presidential committee for minority rights made really effective.

LHL: But it has in no way diminished the standing of parliament, neither will the Elected President. Now let me ask you another question.
Mr Chiam, you say the Elected President denies people one-man-one-vote.

CST: Yes.

LHL: In America, they have one-man-one-vote?

CST: Yes.

LHL: They vote for a President?

CST: But their system is different.

LHL: They vote for a President?

CST: Yes.

LHL: Therefore, an Elected President does not in itself mean that one-man-one-vote is diminished.

CST: Yes, but we have a different system here.

LHL: Can you answer the question, Mr Chiam?

CST: Yes, what is it?

LHL: The question is, in America they vote for a President.

CST: Correct.

LHL: They also have one-man-one-vote.

CST: They have got an electoral system where they have other people to vote the President.

LHL: And they have democracy.

CST: Yes.

LHL: We will have an Elected President with powers far fewer than the American President. We will have one-man-one-vote too.

CST: Effectively no, in time to come.

LHL: Why does that follow?

CST: Because if you have two-thirds in parliament, and when there is a threat to overthrowing you, as stated by the Prime Minister in 1984, then you will amend the Constitution…

LHL: Mr Chiam, if we have wanted to amend the Constitution…

CST: …to give more powers to the President and that will be the end of one-man-one-vote.

LHL: If we had wanted to amend the Constitution, why do you think we did not do so before the general election?

CST: Well..

LHL: We have the majority. You campaigned on this issue in 1984 if you will remember. You failed.

CST: No, we were against the Elected President.

LHL: Yes, and you failed. If I may quote you, in your first election rally, you said, “If the PAP is returned again, parliamentary and democratic government here will be changed to a presidential system in which power will rest with a few or one person.” We have not done that.

CST: Yes, I still stand by it.

LHL: Have we done that?

CST: Because the time has not come yet. Once it comes, you will do it, your government will do it.

LHL: Why do you think we have not done so all these years? Since 1966, there was no Opposition in parliament until ‘81 when Mr Jeyaratnam was elected, and then in ’84, you were elected, and in ‘86 Mr Jeyaratnam was disqualified, and you were alone again. All these years, we have never passed any bill, or amended any constitutional provision, without full debate, discussion, and public explanation. Why do you think we want to do so now?

CST: Because at the moment you don’t perceive the threat. Once the threat is there, I believe, unless you give us assurances, you will go ahead to amend the Constitution to hand further powers above those proposals.

LHL: If the threat is there, Mr Chiam, it will be too late for us to do anything, would it not?

CST: No, you can amend the Constitution in one hour on a certificate….in one afternoon, on a certificate of emergency, three readings, one, two, three.

LHL: Which could be done without an Elected President.

CST: No, you must have an Elected President first.

LHL: No, why? We can have the three readings without the Elected President?

CST: Well, you would not have the moral authority…

LHL: (Loud laughter)

CST: You would not dare to. That is the only reason why you want to go for election.

LHL: So without the Elected President, we would not dare, with, we would. It’s that simple. Can I ask you one last question? Do you understand the President’s powers to restrict spending is only on old money, not new money?

CST: Well, that is a very difficult issue…

LHL: You understand that.

CST: Because even Dr Toh himself says that it is difficult to determine what is old money and new money.

LHL: Mr Chiam, we are not debating Dr Toh here. Do you understand that?

CST: We understand…

LHL: Why do you object to restrictions on spending old money?

MOD: I think we should move on to Mr JB Jeyaratnam now. It’s your turn to ask the questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY WORKERS’ PARTY

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We’ve been told that this plan was first mooted in 1984.

GCT: ’82.

JBJ: ’82. Alright.

GCT: ’84, publicly.

JBJ: Pray why in 1982, and not before? Was it because the 31st of October saw an Opposition member in parliament?

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you flatter yourself. In 1972, the Constitution was amended to prevent sovereignty from being surrendered.

JBJ: Will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?

LHL: Because you ran the line, in 1982….

JBJ: Mr Chairman, will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?

LHL: In 1982,…

JBJ: Why in ‘82?

LHL: Because by 1982, a sufficiently large amount of reserves had been built up, that we were worried for Singaporeans that should something happen, their savings would not be protected, before that there was no money.

JBJ: Was there a large jump in the reserves from ’81 to ’82?

LHL: These are cumulative…

JBJ: Please answer the question.

LHL: The PAP…

JBJ: Was there a large, a big jump in the reserves?

LHL: The reserves have been building up year by year because we have never touched them.

JBJ: But why, before ’82, this plan was never hatched up?

LHL: Why should we not?

JBJ: But why, I’d like to know. Would you please answer that question?

GCT: Mr Chairman, there’s always a time to introduce certain amendments. This was discussed first in 1982. Mr Jeyaratnam would like to think that this was prompted by his victory in Anson.

JBJ: Well, that’s not what I think, Mr Goh. That’s what the public in Singapore think. That’s so plain to everybody. May I move on to the next question? Do not these proposals make a radical change to the parliamentary system?

LHL: Yes, they make a radical change to our Constitution.

JBJ: Thank you, and let’s move on to the next question.

LHL: And that’s why they have fully discussed and are being presented for the population to decide upon them in the election.

JBJ: May I make the next question? You agree that they make a radical change. If you look at your White Paper, you say there should not be any radical change, but now you admit there’s going to be a radical change. Why don’t you go to the people on this radical change?

LHL: As Mr Goh has explained, we will take it step by step. First, a White Paper, debated, explained. Second, major general election issue. We didn’t have to do that, but we have chosen to make it a general election issue. You notice, Mr Jeyaratnam, that in your paper, Towards a Caring Society, you have made no mention of the Elected President, have you?

JBJ: But you don’t answer my question.

LHL: Because…

JBJ: You have admitted that this makes a radical change and this is my Party’s stand, it is going to reduce the role and powers of parliament further

LHL: Can I ask where in your programme you have covered this subject?

JBJ: Please don’t evade my question. We are here to debate this issue, not what appeared and what not appeared in the Hammer.

LHL: You are presenting this as a fundamental issue of momentous significance. We agree… JBJ: It is. It is. LHL: Well, where is it in your programme?

JBJ: Brigadier-General Lee, will you please answer my question?

LHL: Where was it…

JBJ: And not try and, you know, evade the issue by saying, oh, you didn’t raise this before.

LHL: Did you raise it?

JBJ: I’m raising it now.

LHL: Did you raise it in the Party’s political broadcast on Sunday?

JBJ: Now, next question for you, Brigadier-General Lee or Mr Goh Chok Tong. Under these proposals, where is the check on the President? Where is the check on the President, can you tell me?

GCT: Well, the President does not have the power to initiate any policies. He cannot, on his own, change any policies. That lies with the government.

JBJ: I’m not asking you about initiating policies.

GCT: I have not yet completed my answer….

JBJ: Where is the check on the President’s use of his powers?

GCT: The President does not initiate any policies. It is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that do so. The President can decide to say no to certain proposals of the government. Your question is where is the President checked?

JBJ: Where is the check on the President?

GCT: Right. Hence, the need to have an Elected President. The check is with the people. If the President does not do a good job, the people will throw him out very quickly.

JBJ: Well, have you seen your proposals on how to throw the President out? They are very cumbersome and tortuous. Have you seen that?

GCT: The President has got to go before the people every six years.

JBJ: And yet you take the line that it is cumbersome to go to the people now, at this precise moment.

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, we have not said that. You have not listened to Mr Goh’s opening statement.

JBJ: I have listened.

LHL: What we said was, first, debate it in the general election. Then, introduce a bill in parliament. Then, have a select committee hearing. You may present your proposals, alternative views, objections. And if at that point, after all the debate, there is still a need for a referendum, we will do so.

JBJ: May I come back to my question?

MOD: Your colleague, JB, also wants to raise a point.

JBJ: May I come back to this question? Do you agree that the President is not accountable to parliament? He cannot be made to answer to parliament if he decides not to allow the government to spend any reserves or he blocks the appointment of any civil servant. Do you accept that?

GCT: The President is accountable to the people, and..

JBJ: The question is, is he accountable to parliament? Please.

GCT: He is accountable to the people.

JBJ: You don’t answer my question, Mr Goh. Where does he say that he can be summoned to parliament to answer these questions?

MOD: Well, his reply is he is accountable to the people.

JBJ: Doesn’t that diminish the supremacy of parliament? Does it not?

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you’re dying to lord it over the people, aren’t you?

JBJ: Parliament is the people’s body. I’m not lording it over them. I’m defending the people’s rights. Parliament stands for the people.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

MOD: Well, we have now run out of time. But it is the moderator’s time, and Mr Chiam had a question. If it’s a quick question, I’ll allow it.

CST: I have the other half of the questioning to do. You have agreed on that.

MOD: No. No, it…

CST: Yes, yes, Mr Goh has to give me six minutes as well.

MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon.

CST: Can I start now?

MOD: Yes, please.

CST: Now, Mr Goh. You are going to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore. Can I put this question to you? Do you agree that there should be a national referendum on this question of Elected President?

GCT: No, my position is very clear. I don’t believe in going to the people on every issue. You can’t govern through a referendum.

CST: No, this is not every issue, Mr Goh.

GCT: Let me finish. You can’t govern through a referendum. I’ve stated my position very clearly. If after all this discussion, first this debate in this studio, debate outside this studio before the people, select committee after the bill has been tabled in parliament, and you, I and everybody agrees that there’s no consensus on this important issue, I’m prepared to refer this subject to the people for a referendum.

CST: No, as a matter of principle, let’s take aside all this talk about consensus. Do you agree on principle that this is a very important issue, as important as dismantling our armed forces, as important as giving up our sovereignty, because we are going to give up our parliamentary system. Do you agree on this issue, in principle, that we require a referendum.

GCT: No. It is not on the same genre as selling your sovereignty to other countries.

CST: Thank you. Alright, Mr Goh. Now, assuming that you go with what you’ve just said, that there is no national referendum on this question, and you have two-thirds majority in parliament, do you agree to give an assurance to the people of Singapore that no more executive powers will be handed over to the Elected President unless you go back to the people on a national referendum to get the permission to do so?

GCT: Now, we have stated this very clearly….

LHL: This proposal is to safeguard money….

CST: I’m asking Mr Goh please, not Mr Lee.

LHL: Mr Chiam, we speak together. This proposal is to safeguard money. We have said that there would be no amendments not related to this money and key people, because key people are related to money. No clearer undertaking is possible. There are no other components to this. The PAP lays its cards on the table. We do not even have to open this subject. We have presented it because we want to debate it.

CST: I have only three minutes. Can you please answer the question yes or no? The question is if you have two-thirds majority in parliament…

LHL: We have no intention of making any further amendments.

CST: Alright, so you would be willing to go to the people on a national referendum should you require further powers given…

LHL: We will proceed the way we have always done with full public discussion on any issue. But this is purely hypothetical. We have no intention.

CST: The question is do you agree to go to the people?

LHL: Mr Chiam, there is no proposal. We are not intending to do any such thing. You are raising a hypothetical question…

CST: No, it is not hypothetical. You are thinking of 100 years ahead. We are only thinking of, maybe, four years ahead. Assuming that you have got problems, you are going to lose the election, are you going to pass more powers to the President without going to people on a national referendum?

GCT: The answer is a simple one…

CST: Yes or no.

GCT: And I repeat my point. We don’t believe in government-through-referendum. And we will proceed with any changes in accordance with the way we have governed Singapore all the time.

CST: So your answer is no.

GCT: No, there must be full public discussion first. The answer is not a no or yes. There will be a full public discussion…

CST: Don’t evade the question, Mr Goh. Yes or no. You are not willing to go on a national referendum if the government sees a need to hand more powers to the President.

GCT: No, you are assuming that we see the need to hand more powers to the President. We have put up a very clear proposal that we are only interested in these two areas.

CST: So I take it that you are not willing. Your answer is no. You are not going to go on national referendum in case you are going to give…

GCT: We are not contemplating of introducing any other areas for the President.

LHL: There’s no proposal. We’re not intending to do anything.

CST: We are talking of a system if the need arises.

LHL: We are talking about the Elected President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, we are discussing the Elected President proposal as it is. Mr Chiam is asking us a question on what we will do. It’s all in the White Paper.

MOD: Mr Chiam, in the opening statement, Mr Goh made the statement that if as a last resort, if all other issue…

CST: Alright, I go to the next question…

MOD: Let me finish, Mr Chiam. If all other options are exhausted, then the last resort would be they would be prepared to go for a referendum as a last resort if the need arises.

CST: Now, on the first question, he said no. I’m not going to the second question. Mr Moderator, now I go on to the next one. I presume your answer to the second question is no. Now, we come to the general elections, we are in the midst of the general elections. Now, what is the purpose of the general elections?

GCT: Very simple. First, to present our programme to the people, to get a mandate from the people.

CST: To elect a new government, isn’t it?

GCT: Exactly.

CST: Correct. Now what is the purpose of my standing at Potong Pasir?

LHL: You have to answer that.

GCT: I’m amazed. I don’t know what’s the purpose.

CST: So the purpose is not to decide on the issue of the Elected President, is that not correct?

GCT: The purpose of a general election is to decide on whose programme you’re going to accept for the next five years, and…

CST: But the purpose of this general election is not to give a mandate to the government to change the Constitution.

GCT: It is part of our programme, and we’re putting it before the people to decide.

MODERATOR’S TIME

MOD: Well, gentlemen, it’s time for your cross-examinations, but if I may just come back to where we started. Let me get one thing straight on the part of the People’s Action Party. That in proposing the Elected President and the safeguarding of the accumulated reserves and the integrity of the public service, you’re not talking in terms of either hindering the proper functioning of government or dismantling anything or working out to detract in manner from the people’s rights or the normal concerns of a democracy. What you’re really concerned about is how to prevent the squandering of hard-earned reserves by putting in a check, checks and balances to be provided by an Elected President of proven worth and integrity. Is that what the main thrust?

GCT: Yes.

JBJ: Mr Moderator, if I may say, you are putting the case for the government. You are putting the case for the government.

MOD: No, I’m not. I’m coming to you now. And I’m going to ask you that is the case for the Opposition that the Opposition is not opposing the principle but you are concerned about the manner in which it is being implemented and the impact that this is going to have for the very fundamentals that you are concerned.

JBJ: I thought I made that clear in my speech. We are concerned with the further erosion of parliament’s role and its effectiveness. The Party believes that parliament and parliament alone should have the final say over what happens in this country. Now, under the proposals the President can thwart the elected mandate of the people by stopping appointments, preventing use of assets. He’s got great powers under these proposals which is not realised by the government, or they do realise it, they are disguising it.

MOD: Mr Chiam.

CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. Our stand is that the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President, and if you want an Elected President, there must be a national referendum, otherwise the will of the people will be subverted. That is our position. We are demanding that there must be a national referendum on this very vital issue.

MOD: Thank you. Do you want to add anything before I move to closing statements?

LHL: I would just like to ask the Opposition why they are against having two keys on the reserves. All these years the PAP has never found it necessary to do what the Elected President is elected to prevent namely touch the reserves in order to spend them. We have never had to do that because we always run prudent financial management. We’re now trying to put a safeguard.

JBJ: May I answer that?

MOD: Quickly. JBJ: Well, he’s taken a minute or more. Alright, but I say give that other key to the people, and that is the key should be given to parliament, and I will outline in my closing statement how I think the parliament can hold that key.

LHL: The President is elected by the people.

JBJ: But the President is not accountable to parliament.

MOD: Right gentlemen, we are really going to run out of time. And now I think you will have your last chance to say really what you consider to be fundamental. I’ll start with BG Lee on behalf of the PAP.

LHL: I think it should be the other way, Mr Chiam.

MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon. We will start with Mr Jeyaratnam.

JBJ: No, Mr Chiam first.

MOD: Ok, sorry. Oh, you’re going to follow this order.

JBJ: That was how it was arranged.

MOD: Sorry. Mr Chiam to start off with, then Mr Jeyaratnam, and then the closing statement by BG Lee.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. I said that the purpose of the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. Now I think it’s significant to quote from the Straits Times of 23rd December ’84, what the Prime Minister said, “Asked what alternative there were to the system, he said,” ‘he’ meaning the Prime Minister said, “he was thinking of modifications to make sure the excesses were not carried too far.” I interpret the word ‘excesses’ as being the 12.6% vote swing to the opposition in the 1984 general elections.

Now, the Prime Minister is an experienced man, and he knows that once this swing starts, the momentum will be there and if it goes to the ultimate conclusion, the PAP will lose power. In fact, that is what he said, “It is necessary to try and put some safeguards into the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle, to get what they want without running the risk of losing services of the government because one day, by mistake, they will lose the services of the government.” He said, “Suppose there had been another 14% shift in votes, the combined opposition would have captured forty seats, and the PAP 39.” Mr Lee then went on to describe the mood of the voters as groping out for something which they thought was better for them. To those voters, he had this to say, “By all means, reach out. But know the price, this is going to lead to some brinkmanship, not in 1988 maybe, but if we go along this road, it must unravel” meaning PAP government will be unseated. “Is it going to be 1992?,” The Prime Minister asked, “When the PAP is going to lose at the polls.” There you were, those were the innermost fears of the PM when he expressed those words.

Now, you would notice that it is very significant. He was concerned purely whether or not the PAP government was going to be unseated. There was no mention about the preservation of our financial reserves. There was only utterances of fear on the part of PAP losing power. By all means, we have safeguards. Like I’ve said, you have hundred, 200 hundred Gurka troops to guard our reserves. But what the people of Singapore are worried is that these Gurka troops instead of guarding the reserves, is going to imprison them. That is the fear. You give powers to one person, and eventually, instead of using it just to keep our reserves, it can be used against us.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY

MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. This issue, or these proposals rather have been put forward on a fallacious assumption that only the PAP contains within its ranks honest men, and slanderous statements made of the opposition parties that they’re all crooks. I resent that very strongly and it’s not worthy of the PAP to make that statement, shows the kind of people we’re dealing with.

I’m surprised that I have not been asked what the Workers’ Party’s alternative proposal is, and I will now tell you. A much better safeguard would be to require the government to get the unanimous vote in parliament before it begins to use in parliament before it begins to use any of the foreign reserves or the assets. In that way, the government will have to come to parliament, explain its proposals, why it needs the money, and the whole thing will be debated, and if parliament, the government party and the opposition object to this and reject it, then the Prime Minister can advice the President if he thinks that he has to have access to the reserves to dissolve parliament and to call for elections and go to the people. That seems to me to be a much more effective safeguard of our reserves than to give it to the President. As I’ve pointed out, the President under these proposals cannot be summoned to parliament. He cannot be asked to explain why he has made any decision about the reserves or over the appointments. Contrast this to the United States, the President there can be checked by Congress. Every key appointment that he makes must be approved by the legislative bodies. And if Congress doesn’t approve of any decision, it can withhold the supply of money from the President from implementing it. It seems to me, to the Party, that the PAP is fraudulent in its reasoning and its attempting to perpetuate this PAP hold over Singapore by introducing these proposals which are purely designed to pass from a parliamentary government to a dictatorship. Thank you, Mr Moderator.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

MOD: BG Lee.

LHL: Mr Chairman. The PAP has deliberately made the Elected President a key issue in this general election. Otherwise, we will not be here today. We seek the people’s mandate to implement the proposal. Our purpose is very simple: safeguard CPF savings, prevent an unscrupulous government from squandering them without telling you or consulting you. The Elected President will stand guard over these reserves and should they be in any danger, he will sound the alarm. The Opposition are against having a guard or an alarm. You must ask yourselves why.

The Elected President will also have to consent to key appointments in the civil service, because otherwise his powers to protect the reserves can be circumvented. You just put the wrong man in, he will do the job surreptitiously for a crooked government. The Opposition says there’s no need to do anything, all is well. They say that this is a way for Mr Lee, the Prime Minister, to hold on after he has stepped down as PM. They say this will lead to an executive president, and water down our one-man-one-vote system. They are wrong.

First, Mr Chiam and I think also Mr Jeyaratnam have already admitted that there is a need to do something to safeguard our reserves and to uphold the integrity of our public service. So it’s not a difference of principle. It’s only a question of how it should be done.

Secondly, Mr Lee is not interested in this job. He doesn’t want the job. Why should he? He’s already said he doesn’t want to and we have held him back from saying so publicly. And in any case, as he has explained, if he wanted to hold on to power, this is not the way to do it. All he has to do is to be Secretary-General of the Party, and that would be enough.

Thirdly, the Elected President’s powers are purely custodial. He cannot do anything. He can only say no. And they are only restricted to two areas: key personnel and money. He cannot extend his influence to other areas. Even Mr Chiam has no objections to these two proposals. His fear is this will lead to horrendous consequences. Totally unfounded, of course. But even as it stands, he has no objection to the intrinsic powers which will be given to the President. And one-man-one-vote will be quite unaffected. In America, they vote a President. It’s one-man-one-vote. In France, they have a President and Prime Minister, it’s one-man-one-vote. And in Singapore too, nothing would have changed.

Now, we must ask ourselves why the Opposition opposes a two-key system. The PAP has never had to touch the reserves all these years. Is the Opposition intending to touch them as soon as they come into power? Why oppose? If they oppose, what is their alternative? Mr Chiam has sketched none. Mr Jeyaratnam’s alternative is a unanimous vote in parliament. What that means is that if Mr Jeyaratnam or Mr Chiam are the two Opposition members in parliament, they will effectively be the Elected President, because they would have complete veto powers in one constituency on the basis of Potong Pasir.

JBJ: But the Prime Minister can then go to the country.

LHL: So the proposal has been invented on the spur of the moment, and we have yet to hear one from the SDP.

CST: That is not an issue.

LHL: That is an issue, because the SDP, if it is against this proposal in practice, but not in principle, then it is your responsibility to produce an alternative possibility. Now the opposition is asking the electorate to deny the PAP a two-thirds majority, as if except for this majority, the Elected President would be imposed on people The PAP has had more than a two-thirds majority for more than 20 years. We have never abused it. Why do we need to do so now? A referendum? Well, if need be, we will have a referendum. Let us go through the whole process first. Argue, debate, vote in elections. Second reading in parliament, select committee and then if there’s still fundamental objection, we will hold a referendum, and it will be properly entrenched and the votes will be produced. The question is not whether the PAP has a monopoly on virtue, we don’t claim that.

JBJ: Don’t you?

LHL: The question is how can we make sure that whoever governs Singapore is a good government. Never mind whether he’s a PAP one or an Opposition one. Mr Jeyaratnam takes umbrage at some of the things which have been said about the Opposition candidates but none of them are untrue.

JBJ: What about the PAP Ministers?

LHL: The concern is how do we make sure that whoever is in charge, your money is protected. So think carefully, decide whether you want your money protected, that is what the PAP wants to do. And vote according to your decision on Saturday.

CONCLUSION

MOD: Thank you. Well, gentlemen, I’m afraid we have run out of time. I wish we had more time listening to the arguments.

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. That’s what I’ve been asking for.

MOD: But that’s what we have. And we must bring this debate to a close. In doing so, it remains for me to say how grateful I and the organisers are for your participation. Thank you. Thank you.

Worker's Party Youth Wing Essay Competition
Essay Entry #5 by Crystal Ong Min Ning, 15 yrs old

What is your Ideal Singapore?

My ideal Singapore is a work in progress.

In the island of my dreams, we will strive, not pretend towards multiracialism. We will teach children to love each other, to accept that we’re same yet different, to see into each other’s hearts and say “I love you because you’re the best friend I can ever have” instead of “I love you because Teacher says we must befriend those of other races”.

We will accept criticism with humility and grace and learn to improve from it. Our airport doesn’t have to be the highest ranked in the world. It can be the most people-centred, the one place where smiles are genuine and not merely products of overzealous campaigns. (Or it can just stick to what it does best: make Singaporeans returning home cry silently as they catch their first glimpse of Changi in years through a tiny plane window.)

Parents will teach their children to make the best of the talents they have, not force-fit them into a mould. Schools will do more than teach our children the limitations of the real world – they will teach them to defy the status quo, to challenge stereotypes and break new ground. The new generation of Singaporeans won’t just conform to expectations - they will learn to think and fend for themselves. We won’t be a nation of complainers, but of doers.

We won’t bother to try manufacturing patriotism, because we don’t need to. Let us root ourselves here in family, culture and shared values. Patriotism should grow by itself, watered by pride and nourished by a true sense of belonging. We can love an imperfect Singapore perfectly.

My ideal Singapore won’t just be a country or a city. It will be home. It doesn’t have to be the best yet, but we will be humble enough to admit that we aren’t all there, yes, but we won’t rest on our laurels either.

We don’t have to try too hard to appear to be what we aren’t – we can set high standards and work towards them. If we don’t content ourselves with reaching the top, one day we just might touch the sky. (:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=117042416874&ref=mf

The poem Home At Last was written by Dr Goh Poh Seng, one of Singapore's pioneer writers.

HOME AT LAST

In life,

we're subject to vagrancies

and vicissitudes of fate,

our hearts many times exiled,

flung onto distant shores,

but we all tread the footprints

of our ancestors

home to our final rest.

At least, that was before nationhood

Now I see visions of the headstones

scattered on the island

white as white can be

in the daily outpour of light,

a scene with shifting shadows

thrown by clouds

on land green,

relays of tropic flowers,

angsana and casuarina

hibiscus and cana.

We can then all forget

our own private histories,

unfurl our wings

and walk joyous into the air.

BusinessWeek
Increase your influence tenfold
http://www.businessweek.com/print/managing/content/jul2009/ca20090731_261543.htm

So what do we have to do in order to gain a tenfold increase in our influence? We have to overdetermine change. We need to turn all six sources of influence in favor of the desired behaviors in such a way that these actions become the path of least resistance.

But before you can make change inevitable, you have to discover why change seems impossible. You have to learn to recognize all the sources of influence that are aligned against your intended change.

For example, let's look more carefully at why seasoned executives would so predictably engage in petty politics during a high-stakes budget process. A careful study of their behavior reveals how each of the six sources of influence are involved.

1. Personal Motivation For 358 days of the year senior executives feel morally obligated to their functions—the people they work with and care about. It's no surprise that the moral inertia they bring to the seven-day conversation about enterprise budgets keeps them oriented toward the needs of those they are most deeply connected to.

2. Personal Ability These executives have been highly trained to think about investments in their area of functional expertise. They have little experience or education in the financial trade-offs and opportunities available in other areas.

3. Social Motivation Human beings crave approval. These executives experience more praise and pressure regarding achievements in their functional areas than for any lofty enterprise-level concerns. A few nudges from the CEO about transcending their silo are a paltry assault on the tsunami of social pressure they get from their functional employees and yes, even the CEO, for "hitting it out of the park" in their own area.

4. Social Ability The executive team did little to enable one another to question, challenge, or contribute to teammates' plans. They were slow to answer each others' questions and they spent little time together in creative development.

5. Structural Motivation Ninety percent of each executives' incentive pay is tied to functional goals. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

6. Structural Ability Our physical environment doesn't just motivate, it enables. To understand an executive's behavior, you need only look at what information and relationships are most enabled by his or her surroundings. These executives' offices were located with their functional teams. Ninety-nine percent of their time was spent with those in their divisions. If they did make contact with those from other departments, it was usually because they got off the elevator on the wrong floor. Likewise, the reports and meetings that dominated their mind-share focused them downward, not upward.

Cause i'm the token 'black guy'. the other ethnicity will technically go next - meaning arab, then malay. the majority race rule of zombie survival 101 requires (at least 1) chinese to survive, meaning ben, possibly eileen as his love interest. Of course, there's a clause in the rule that involves all the chinese to die and only the indian/arab to survive, invoking the 'i-didn't-expect-that-shit-yo' clause.
 
Of course, all these rules would actually only apply to western movies. For regular horror genres, oriental films (including Japanese, Korean,Malaysian, Thai, Singapore), I believe there is only one rule: the ghost rule...
 
..as in the ghost will rule and pawn your sweet arses - everyone dies, dramatically, and none of it is explained.

 
Hence, zombie warfare with movie rules applied involves all our impending horrific doom, theoretically speaking.
 
 
peace,
VS

Vivian Sasidharan on why he'll be the first to die in a zombie holocaust.

Berita Harian summarized the speech I wrote for PM for MUIS' 40th Anniversary Event.

Malay/Muslim Affairs

Success in strengthening position as key institution

BH (11 July, p1) reported on comments by Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong in an interview with BH in conjunction with Muis’ 40^th anniversary, in which he praised Muis for the hard work put into winning the trust and respect of the Singapore Muslim community since its formation 40 years ago. Mr Lee also said that Muis’ role as an institution managing the community’s religious affairs is also no longer in doubt. In fact, Muis has guided the community through several difficult issues such as the Mosque Building Program, Hota, as well as issues related to terrorism. In summary, Mr Lee said that Muis has strengthened its position as a key institution within the lives of Singaporean Muslims. Nonetheless, Mr Lee also said that Muis’ success is due to the community support, and urged both parties to continue the partnership towards bringing greater progress to the Muslim community. Since Singapore is a secular country, its citizens comprise followers of many religions, and the government acknowledges the positive role played by religion within a heterogenous society. Muis acts as a consultative platform with regards to issues dealing with social harmony, and is also an effective platform for obtaining feedback on policies. For the Muslim community, Mr Lee said that what is important is that they understand the context of practicing religious life. According to Mr Lee, Singaporean Muslims live in a secular country, where every religious group is free to practice its religion as long as they do not affect social unity. To foster integration between Singaporeans, there has to be tolerance and self-restrictions for all groups. As such, Mr Lee commended Muis’ efforts to develop the Singapore Muslim Identity (SMI) which encourages the community to promote values of inclusiveness, and self adjustment in the context of a heterogenous Singaporean community. As for new challenges ahead for Muis and the Muslim community, Mr Lee said that new generations of Singaporeans are more exposed to ideas and influences, and are more confident in expressing their views, or debate on issues. There is also the influx of immigrants, both Muslims and non-Muslims, and Muis has to help Muslims integrate with the Singaporean general community, besides increasing their ability to cope with changes arising from globalisation.

There's been quite a bit of talk about the first Malay that the SAF appoint as Brigadier-General. Some have praised the appointment, some have derided it. I think its a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" or "promote salah, tak promote salah". Will Malays be pacified even when we have a Malay PM? The blacks aren't all that different after Obama. Truth is the appointment of the first Malay general has many deep resonances - not just in racial relations, supposed meritocratic system, etc. So anyone trying to colour it in one stroke is not painting the full picture.

I think this "racial grudge" Malays hold is due to the fact that we never really talk openly about race. There are good reasons why the government of a Chinese majority country in a sea of Malays would shift the armed forces from the being previously dominated by Malays to having it predominantly Chinese-led. If Hong Kong held a Malay majority, I think we might do the same. There is a need for a structural recognition of Malays when selecting senior military positions. I don't like it but I can't disagree with it. Only thing is, we don't talk about it enough, and the conversation on the ground goes into "is it a racial thing or a meritocratic thing?" Anyone that says its either one is not quite right. It's both, and more.. but we don't talk about the more part.

Whatever it is, I think it is still a milestone. Somebody somewhere decided that a previously untouched level of trust can be extended to this Malay guy.

How do you know when you're lacking something? Seems to be an easy question, at a glance. You feel the lack, then you realize if something is missing. What happens when the absence of the feeling of lacking stops you from the realization?

Still with me so far? Probably not. 

I've been lucky enough to have had a couple of episodes where I felt the lack of something. Lucky being relative. A neurological lack.. some times a deprivation of a particular emotion, other times a lack of intellectual keenness. I would recognize a time and place where I would logically find natural feelings of nostalgia springing up - but no feelings do. A disconnect happens. I logically realize the lack of emotion. 

That's not too bad. It's the intellectual part that scares me. There have been conversations where in the middle of a train of thought, I feel like I rushed forward and left my brain behind. Dumbfounded. Feels like I'm running ahead but I stop because I left a leg behind. Seems to imply that I have a higher ability before than now.. force of habit keeps being running ahead, an injury holds me back.

Begs the question, what injury?

What's funny is.. I've starting acting like I'm injured. I've noticed a growing misanthropy. I'm honest enough to admit, it's probably always been there. This self-centered hatred for people. Maybe not hatred, but.. just a weariness. Of never quite fitting in. Or to be more precise, of not wanting to.

I've been acting nice. I've been hardworking. I've been inclusive. I've been doing the chores. I've been trying to be the hero. In so doing, I've been losing my genius. My insights have dropped, I don't have that familiar grasp on everything and everyone I set my mind to anymore.. that intuitive feeling of knowing how it all works, and what the solution to the problem is. I haven't been back to that place where nothing else exists in the world but the problem at hand and the different perspectives to looking at it. 

I'm a geek who trained himself to be a jock, and losing the ability to be either.   

But why the assumption that I cant be both? If Vin Diesel can do it, so can I. Unfortunately, I'm using Gregory House as a role model.

Could be post-traumatic stress disorder. Trauma the only way I would define it as such. Trauma could occur after inexplicable human behavior - and that was my work experience in MTI. Inexplicable human behavior. Staying till midnight to do 13 pages delegation report got me chewed up for not doing in 3 pages. Among other things. It was the irrational chastisement that threw all the rules out of the window that induced the traumatic stress. Even being in the army was fine - being scolded was fine if it made sense. Dealing with pain, suffering, even people undergoing psychosis was fine because it was rational. Rational people acting irrationally without any explaining factors... that's my recipe for trauma. 

So it was trauma. Question is, did it induce some kind of neurological injury or effect. More importantly, is it going to go away? 

To some of you, this could be all crazy talk. If you think this is crazy, you should hear me when I get a fever. Delirious stuff.

Fascinating part is.. I'm examining and analyzing my neurological experience and ability, using the same experience and ability. Yet, it does not degenerate into a spiraling recursive loop of DEATH.

Ah well. ..

---

BTW, just so you know or if you're too daft, ignorant, arrogant or too plain stupid to realize.. this is a completely PERSONAL blog with PRIVATE posts. You're welcome to read.. but just so you know, all this stuff isn't exactly meant for an audience.  

Again, just to be clear.. PRIVATE means I'll sue you if you do anything more than read this stuff and contemplate life.

I honestly appreciate a good argument and if the opposing viewpoint is far more valid, I am ready to concede. Unfortunately, I don't come across good arguments often, especially online. 

Anyway, this discussion below revolves around...

Question: Does labeling a subject as "secular" and learning it in a secular setting make it lose its relation to God? Or "To be true Muslims, do we need to mention God in the learning of how a balance sheet works?"

I don't see why it should. Someone convince me otherwise.

PS In the course of this discussion, I felt like I was being made out to be a complete ignorant fool. Am I over-reacting here or is this guy as rude as I think he is?

Firdaus Daud at 1:59pm June 3

Madrasahs are more secular than islamic because drawing a distinction bet "duniawi" and "ukhrawi" education is secularist?

 

I think its very point-of-view.

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 6:50pm June 3

Wat do u mean by "point-of-view"?

 

A salient feature of the secular philosophy of education is its intended separation between religion and life.

 

The Islamic understanding of knowledge is that all knowledge shld project the idea of tauhid and of ma'rifatullah. There is no such thing as a "duniawi" subject- subjects that are only intended for worldly purposes forgetting the end objective which is God.

 

 

Firdaus Daud at 7:35pm June 3

How and why do "duniawi" subjects forget "the end objective which is God"?

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 12:22pm June 4

Examining the term "duniawi", or in translation "of this world", one would find that it bears a distinctive connotation that points to a separation of this world and the next. A close examination of classical texts reveal that scholars have never classified bodies of knowledge in such a way. In fact, scientists and social scientists of the past do project and Islamic worldview in thir scholarly works. This is to say that their study of natural phenomena and society is never separated from the metaphysical doctrine of Islam.

 

The term "duniawi" is a Modernist innovation, tampered by secularism!

 

 

Firdaus Daud at 1:37pm June 4

You're evading the question. How does using the term "duniawi" cause the subject to cease being part of someone's Islamic worldview? All knowledge is within the realm of God. I don't see how using the label of "duniawi" causes someone to view the study of something like geography to be devoid of islamic relevance. 

 

It's what you're associating to the "duniawi" label. That's point of view. It may be a secular label but it doesn't make it unIslamic. They're not on opposite ends of a spectrum. In fact, secularism and Islam can be the same thing. 

 

To be clear, I see secularism as adopting a "No compulsion to religion" approach - rather than "no religion".

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 4:03pm June 4

Terms and semantics are important because they are the exposition of one's worldview. I.e to say, language is the projection of one's worldview. The same term can mean different things in different worldviews. The term education in a secular worldview is different from that which is understood from the Islamic worldview. As such, I am definitely answering ur qn here.

 

Perhaps you do not know secularism enough. Secularism is actually the anti-thesis of Islam. In fact it is the anti-thesis of all religions! Read Al-Attas "Islam and Secularism" to find out :)

 

 

Firdaus Daud at 5:08pm June 4

The question is why "duniawi" means it is devoid of "end objective of God". You keep repeating that it is because that's the Islamic worldview. Cannot la..

 

And a bit arrogant to presume someone else doesn't know something enough right? Secularism is not necessarily the anti-thesis of all religions and Al-attas is not the definite definer of "secularism". The point is there are many different perspectives and you have to be aware of that. Be more open-minded k.

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 7:03pm June 5

Err this is semantics and linguistics. The study of meanings. "Duniawi" does connote that meaning. Go read the Qur'an :) 

 

Besides, a critical examination of the m,adrasah curriculum reveals the existence of a DUAL system. One comprising of traditional subjects such as the Arabic Language, Syariah etc. and the other, a copy of the MOE secular syllabus that has no relation to God-consciousness. Tell me friend, did ur teacher teach you the relation between God and science and maths before in class??

 

Go read up on the history of secularism in the West first. We cannot discuss unless we have a common understanding and framework of mind on secularism. Then we can add other perspectives :)

 

 

Firdaus Daud at 3:32pm June 6

Semantics is the study of meaning. Linguistics is the study of language. What has language got to do with this? Can't just say throw words like semantics and linguistics and then stick to your position. Doesnt make sense.

 

My point is still missed. I will try one more time. Of course there are two "systems" and that secular subjects are not taught with any mention or relation to God. But why does that necessarily make it an anti-thesis of Islam? It does not. Because all knowledge is in the realm of Allah. The study of this world is Islamic. You don't need to label the subject as "ukhrawi" to have it connected to God. 

 

If you disagree, show me categorically how the study of Geography, Astrophysics, Medicine, Finance makes one disconnected from God. You don't need to mention God when teaching how to balance a balance sheet.

 

Agree, we cannot discuss unless we have a framework. Problem is we do. It's just that, you automatically think I haven't read anything. A bit rude lah.

 

 

Firdaus Daud at 3:57pm June 6

In fact, friend, your understanding of secularism is similar to how the pre-Enlightenment Churches in Europe conceived of it. All knowledge must be connected to Christ, they thought. 

 

It was our great Muslim scholar, Averroes, that founded secular thought in the West. It was Islam that was open to seek and learn all knowledge rather than stick to what was necessarily connected to God. It is this philosophy that allowed Muslim scholars to take greatly from the Greeks, and from everyone else. 

 

If you consider it, Nabi Muhd s.a.w. was a Business student who learnt trade. He did not require the teaching of skills and trades like smithing, hunting, riding of horses to need the mention of God. 

 

Yes, if today's secular science is taught in a way that makes students lose their belief and faith in God then yes let's make some changes. If it is neutral, as it should be, then there is no compulsion. 

 

I hope you revert with something more than "go read". Salam, friend.

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 7:21pm June 6

Knowledge or ilm as understood in the Qur'an is not conjectures or theories. Knowlegde or ilm is related to haqiqah truth and reality) and not zann and syak.It relates to certainties that affirms our belief or iman. As such, all knowledge does point to God, if we use this definition as mentioned in the Qur'an. This is what I mean by the imporatance of language and semantics.

 

The study of Geography, Astrophysics, Medicine and Finance, that does not relate to the Islamic metaphysical worldview and Jurisprudence, only discusses the how i.e the mechanisms. It is akin to studying road signs while missing the final direction. Or studying individual trees while missing the whole forest. Classical Muslim scholars, in their investigations of natural phenomena, never forget to keep the divine relation in mind.

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 7:32pm June 6

Unfortunately friend, Islam did not have the same secularizing experience as that of its Western counterparts. This is because it is the truth and will always be in harmony with the truth.

 

I'm surprised you consider Ibn Rusyd as the father of secularism. Which does reflect some form of ignorance. Averroes, in his treatise "The Incoherence of the Incoherence" is a response to Al-Ghazali's monumental work, Tahafut Al-Falasifah, does not mention the need for religion to be restricted to a private sphere. It does not say that religion shld be removed from the study of natural phenomena. In a nutshell, what the treatise would imply is that philosophy is in harmony with religious truth. Go read :)

 

Secularism is a product of Western disappointment with Christianity; because Christianity cannot fulfil the West pursuit of truth. Shld the same thing be applied to Islam then? Go read :)

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 7:43pm June 6

The scholars of the past did not reject Greek philosophy. On the contrary to what you have raised earlier, they accepted some, they rejected some. They critically examined Greek thought and filtered those that were not in line with our belief. Certain aspects of Aristotelian thought found its way in empirical methods as established by Muslim scientists. But in the realm of metaphysics, such as the idea of the world being created by God but left on its own to run on its own mechanism, was rejected because it is not in line with our understanding of God as the Cherisher. The Muslims have put Greek thought in its proper place. This is what we mean by adab towards knowledge.

 

In a nutshell, the Muslims were firmly rooted in their Islamic worldview, which allowed them to re-cast information from other civilizations. Unfortunately, we are not doing the same today. Under the notion of "all knowledge is in the realm of God" we simply accept without critical examination.

 

 

Hasanul Arifin at 8:11pm June 6

But not everything is knowledge. Knowledge is not the same as information. This results in what Al-Attas defines as "the confusion of knowledge," the same way Al-Ghazali wrote in his Tahafut Al-Falasifah in critical examination of the Greek metaphysics.

 

We then return to our argument about Madrasahs being an "Islamic learning environment." Because the Qur'an defines Islam as "submission to the will of Allah" and that the purpose of Man is to "submit to His Will", then everything shld relate back to Him and to the moral-spiritual teachings of the Qur'an. Which is why the dichotomy of duniawi-ukhrawi shld be rejected :)

 

The Qur'an says "Iqra'". Go read :) This is a reminder to myself as well. No need to be so sensitive.

I haven't blogged in a while. It's been a while hasn't it? Yea, time is flying by so ridiculously fast. I tried, a couple of times, to sit still and do nothing and try to catch that old slow momentum that I used to abhor as a child. That placid (back then boring) moments when nothing happened and nothing was expected to happen for whenever. The carefree idleness now seem as far away as memories of soaking in the swimming pool of the old Loyang condominium at sunset. Golden sky, golden waters, with nothing to do but to soak in the gold.... AND CASH IN. right.

It's a sign of the times. The end of times. I guess we all have to live with the fact that we're rushing forward to the end.. like skipping ahead in the last few pages of the book to know if the hero dies. Morbid but yeah, we all die. 

In lighter conversation, I started on my job! I've jumped from Assistant Director of Trade to Community Relations Executive for the Malay Muslim Community under MCYS. The Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports. I work primarily with two other people - one of which is my direct boss. It's a lean small team - and we're working hard but the people here at least I can connect with. Actually, in MTI, I could connect with everyone else. I guess it's just the way it went. C'est la vie. 

I'm trying to work harder. Like crazy ass hard. Like break the rules kinda thing. I don't know if there's such a thing as extreme policy-making. Yeah, I want to be the Tiger Woods of Cabinet Papers. Hah. Hardcore!

Of note, I ran to get PM Najib some Briyani when he came by Sultan Mosque for Prayers.. we had the Grand Mufti of Syria there as well. I've overdosed on VIPs. I think if I even see another Minister within the next few days, I'll go into some kind of cardiac arrest and bleed out of my nose. 

Dramatic. 

Time flies. I wish I could change that. Spending a day without internet helps. Unhooking from content and spending time with someone you could be quiet with. Quiet alone time works. Funny how when you're with someone like that the hours go by so fast yet the moment sometimes last pretty darn long. 

Emo and dramatic. Shit.

I think its time to try and sleep. It's really warm tonight. (See above regarding end of times)

I know now to look where I place my steps. 

But, also, I have to remember to look them in the eye.
Deep, past the eye's unbroken surface.

I remember those eyes. 

Those eyes with their unmoving waves on which an ocean of angels sang a siren's song. And holding you captive, unexpected yet without surprise. Caught and bound and drawn in tighter and tighter with the coils of rope thrown around unremittingly, building up to a ... 

I digress.

You know, love can hold you captive and suck your soul out with one violent, wrenching motion, as easily as it can build you up and set you free. Free, onto the wind.. like a bird on a cool morning breeze. 

I'm sure you know how love calls just to remind of you of the connection. To plunge down the path ahead while reminiscing of the trail left behind. To get to share all the deep inner stuffings. To learn the names of each others' childhood playthings. 

To know truth is love. To know life is love. To cast away all burdens of lies is love. To sacrifice and let them take it all is love. To win without taking is love. To see yourself is love. To accept the other is love.

Love is easy.

I got this quiz off Sya's livejournal. Got bored, messed around with the questions and got a little stunned by the answers. The accuracy kinda took me off guard.

Your view on yourself:
Other people find you very interesting, but you are really hiding your true self. Your friends love you because you are a good listener. They'll probably still love you if you learn to be yourself with them.

The type of girlfriend/boyfriend you are looking for:
You like serious, smart and determined people. You don't judge a book by its cover, so good-looking people aren't necessarily your style. This makes you an attractive person in many people's eyes.

Your readiness to commit to a relationship:
You are ready to commit as soon as you meet the right person. And you believe you will pretty much know as soon as you might that person.

The seriousness of your love:
You like to flirt and behave seductively. The opposite sex finds this very attractive, and that's why you'll always have admirers hanging off your arms. But how serious are you about choosing someone to be in a relationship with?

Your views on education:
Education is very important in life. You want to study hard and learn as much as you can.

The right job for you:
You're a practical person and will choose a secure job with a steady income. Knowing what you like to do is important. Find a regular job doing just that and you'll be set for life.

How do you view success:
You are afraid of failure and scared to have a go at the career you would like to have in case you don't succeed. Don't give up when you haven't yet even started! Be courageous.

What are you most afraid of:
You are afraid of having no one to rely on in times of trouble. You don't ever want to be unable to take care of yourself. Independence is important to you.

Who is your true self:
You are full of energy and confidence. You are unpredictable, with moods changing as quickly as an ocean. You might occasionally be calm and still, but never for long.

It's been 3 months since I've stepped out from MTI and 2 months since I've officially quit, and I've been ramping up on activity. I've converted the storeroom in my mums shop into a small office. Working out of it most of the time. In fact, I'm here right now.

MCYS called me up again and asked me to reconsider. I did, and I followed my mum's advice to take the job. I'll be involved in Malay Muslim Affairs. I've been working on takeaction.sg as well. With Andrew.

I still can't quite put in full steam ahead. I even felt a pang of apprehension when I stepped into Terminal 2 the other day, brought me back to the times when I was always flying off somewhere. But it was cool after a while.

I've been trying to keep the insomnia at bay with exercise. Surprise, surprise.. I'm running every other day now. Quite humbling to find the disgusting depths I've allowed my fitness to sink down to. I had sailing training to keep my fit from Primary school all through JC, and NS to follow after that. The years of playing student government in SMU has had its toll, although yes that should not be an excuse. Gilbert's playing tennis on a regular basis now and Andrew always had his floorball. Despite the huge chunk of self-justification, I knew deep inside that playing the drums was hardly enough exercise.

Especially considering how rarely I had the opportunity to drum in the first place.

Getting more involved with young amp. The site is up.. youngamp dot sg. And fmylife dot com has been a godsend. Next time anyone feels like they're slipping into depression should immerse themselves into the plethora of very unfortunate yet amusing stories on that site.

FML. :)

I have written about this before but I wish to post about it again. We, who are outside the walls of leadership and beyond the corridors of power, do not understand what it is that our leaders go through.

But our leaders are blind also, not by choice but by circumstance, to the luxury of perspective. It is this phenomenon that requires both to be engaged in communication and in a system where neither hold sway.

Any statesman is in part the prisoner of necessity. He is confronted with an environment he did not create, and is shaped by a personal history he can no longer change. It is an illusion to believe that leaders gain in profundity while they gain experience. As I have said, the convictions that leaders have formed before reaching high office are the intellectual capital they will consume as long as they continue in office. There is little time for leaders to reflect. They are locked in an endless battle in which the urgent constantly gains on the important. The public life of every political figure is a continual struggle to rescue an element of choice from the pressure of circumstance.

If history teaches anything it is that there can be no peace without equilibrium and no justice without restraint. But I believed equally that no nation could face or even define its choices without a moral compass that set a course through the ambiguities of reality and thus made sacrifices meaningful. The willingness to walk this first line marks the difference between the academic's - or any outsider's - perception of morality and that of the statesman. The outsider thinks in terms of absolutes; for him right and wrong are defined in their conception. The political leader does not have this luxury. He rarely can reach his goal except in stages; any partial step is inherently morally imperfect and yet morality cannot be approximated without it.

The philosopher's test is the reasoning behind the maxim; the statesman's test is not only the exaltation of his goals but the catastrophe he averts.

The statesman's responsibility is to struggle against transitoriness and not to insist that he be paid in the coin of eternity. He may know that history is the foe of permanence; but no leader is entitled to resignation. He owes it to his people to strive, to create, and to resist the decay that besets all human institutions.

~ H. Kissinger, The White House Years

I was offered a position in MCYS Malay-Muslim Community Relations. It was a good position. The culture seemed fine, the bosses were very friendly and the work would have been pretty worthwhile.

But I've got something bigger. I've got to start my social enterprise.

So, I turned the job offer down.

I've been in a kind of stupor since I've quit. Very odd. At times, I can feel it - it's like a weird invisible nausea at the edge of my vision. Often times, I don't realize its there and I live this life of sloth - not sleeping at night (facebooking, online poker, reading) and waking up late in the day and doing little else.

I broke through the stupor a couple of times and when I do I feel the momentum to get productive again. It's very odd. I'm not sure if this is the after-effect of the burnout. It's definitely something I'm fighting against. I can't wait to get back on the bandwagon and be a workaholic again. Okay, within limits.

Anyway, I've got a number of things to get done within the week for the social enterprise. Let's try and get cracking.

I've written about the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to the Straits Times and the need for Singaporeans to consider the importance of due process. Our choice to not consider it is still blood on our hands.

The act was introduced in 1958 during the colonial era and was intended to be a temporary measure. The intention was clear; temporary being branded in its very name. The act allows for the Minister of Home Affairs to detain a Singaporean without the due process of a trial if he is satisfied that the Singaporean is associated with activities of a criminal nature. However, this detaining process must obtain the approval of the public prosecutor and will be referred to an advisory committee and is also subject to the acceptance of the President.

A good enough check and balance, if we were in normal circumstances. I may be able to let all this rest if Andrew Kuan had been allowed to qualify as candidate for the recent Singapore Presidential elections.

The act also makes illegal any strike or lock-outs of essential services, allows the dispersal of assemblies, makes (including intention of) trafficking of any suspicious supplies illegal, makes almost every offense under this act non-bailable and expands police powers in the execution of this act at the cost of due process.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once gave his rationale for this act, saying that "It must be realised that if you abolish the powers of arrest and detention and insist on trial in open court in accordance with the strict laws of evidence of a criminal trial, then law and order becomes without the slightest exaggeration utterly impossible, because whilst you may still nominally have law and order, the wherewithal to enforce it would have disappeared. The choice in many of these cases is either to go through the motions of a trial and let a guilty man off to continue his damage to society or to keep him confined without trial."

I cannot comprehend that the judicial system has failed so miserably as to be completely incapable of finding guilt where it exists and to deliver punishment where it is due. I have very often argued that if there was indeed a crack in the judicial system through which these criminals would find escape, then the remedy must be to the judicial system and not wrought by the hand of the executive.

We must start to have respect for a system of checks and balances. A system of governance that would still work and function even after we leave the cradle that the PAP has provided us from birth. If Singapore is to be a true democratic republic, then the people must be capable of standing on our own two feet if we have to.

On 19 January 2009, the Singapore Parliament heard the first reading of the act to extend the CLTP Act for another five years. If we do nothing, the act will continue to exist. Will we continue to be quiet?

He wandered the streets aimlessly and amused himself wondering about the similarities between the words wonder and wander; and why each word held the vowel that they each had. A sober note struck when he realized that nobody else would really bother coming up with an answer to that one and without an answer the would be no end to that train of thought.

He hated unresolved trains of thought. It made him lose track of things. That was why he was taking this walk in the first place.

The streets were empty at this time of the night except for the occasional speeding blue cars with flashing green lights that screamed "TAXI". It gets too obvious, he thought to himself. Wouldn't it be more fun if the taxis didn't announce that they were taxis all the time? Would it hurt for the words to instead say "Will take you somewhere for cash" or "Driver for Hire" or even "Unmotivated? I'll give you drive"

He noted the grammatical gaffe in that last phrase as he started balance-walking on the street curb. The public lamps engulfed the streets in unflickering orange. Public lamps without a flicker, like anything public in this country it seems. Unwavering, unfaltering, relentless. Strict, obdurate, severe. Or stoic.

"Is there such a thing as a stoic government?," he thought, as he jumped off the curb and crossed the empty road. "Perhaps a long-suffering, uncomplaining leader. But government?"

The thoughts about the government led him to remember his stint as intern at a small law firm and the sad case of Yong Vui Kong that he worked on. Yong, a 19 year old boy from Sabah, who came from a broken family with unfortunate circumstances. Yong did not know better than to put his trust and loyalty with the "Lao Ban" that first gave him a job. After a year working for him, he was given another simple job; Yong was to deliver some gifts across the causeway. Unfortunately, the gifts were heroin and the State has declared his life forfeit for the despicable act.

Someone can decide to take away your life. Is there no limit to what they can take away from you?

He reached the 7-eleven and bought himself an ice-cold can of milo and a chocolate muffin. The theme for supper was simple tonight. He made his way back home, munching away as his mind raced.

But does it not make sense to have such a strict policy on drug trafficking? That's the way it has to be. There is no other way. The boy must be put to death for being in possession of those drugs. The government is always right and efficient. There is no credible opposition or opposing thought. There is not enough talent for the country to have 2 parties. 2 + 2 must make 5.

Don't pause to think, just follow. Stay together and move ahead. You're not good enough, we are. Let us lead the way, and pay ourselves how much we think we deserve.

He wiped off the muffin crumbs from his mouth and emptied the can of milo. He sat on the street curb and sighed.

If the proclaimation of death upon a young man who claims innocence does not even give us pause, and if we believe him to be innocent and yet am still not compelled to action, then we have killed him ourselves through our act of omission. Our silent support of a system that may kill innocents is blood on our hands as well.

Yong may well be guilty and lying through his teeth to stay alive. Or he may really be innocent. The question is do we care enough to know if our system works. Or do we take it all as fact?

He stared as his shoes. Then stared at his hands. Palm, fingers, then turned his hands over to look at his nails. Turning them over again, he imagined a Macbeth blood stain in the palm of his right hand. A dark crimson shape spreading outward slowly. Inexorable, relentless. He blinked and the blood seemed to have disappeared. He couldn't tell. It looked the same in the orange light anyway.

Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday, as delivered.

My fellow citizens,

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America; they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted; for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things; some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions; that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act; not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions; who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day; because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control, and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart; not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West; know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends; hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism; these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility; a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence, the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed; why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.