I'm finally learning that it's utterly helpless to try and discuss one of the least pleasent quirks of our national culture - namely the taking of personal responsability. There's utterly no point in talking about the subject or even thinking you might be able to make difference, because this is Singapore, the land of accomodating practical people. So before you keep reading this entry, I must let you know that anything you may deem offensive about what I write, is not actually my fault.Perhaps I was complacent, but the real truth of the matter is, it was the fault of the guards who let Mas Selamat go. This also a two-way streak. If you reply to anything I may find offensive, I won't address the issue with you, I'll just blame the guards who let Mas Selamat go. After all, the complacent bastards should have known better.
Anyway, if you don't believe me, I would urge you to look at interview with Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, which was published in the Straits Times. In the interview, Mr Lee made it a point to blame the escape and subsequent failure to capture Mas Selamat on - complacency. According to Mr Lee, Mas Selamat's handlers were complacent -they knew he was a slippery fish but being so complacent they let him run off. Of course, his handlers are not the only complacent buggers around - Singaporeans in general have become so complacent, that they expect the uncomplacent creators of the system to take care of their every whim and fancy. However, when asked if there were incidences of incompetence, Mr Lee, true to form, reprimanded the interviewer and declared that we can only know once the Comittee of Inquiry has completed its work sometime (being the opperative word here) in the not to distant future.
In Singapore it's something of a sacrilledge to disagree with Mr Lee. If Sir Stamford Raffles founded Singapore as a colony, Lee Kuan Yew is the man who made Singapore what it is today. You have to admire his achievements. Thanks to his passion and leadership, Singapore has become a thriving metropolis in a few short years. I like to think of Singapore as everything a city should be - clean, green, rich and safe. As I've often mentioned, Lee Kuan Yew stands out as probably the only man of his generation who rulled wisely and made the decision to step out of the hot steat at his own accord.
Lee Kuan Yew remains admired by both East and West. Mainland China, Vietnam and even India find his transformation of Singapore remarkable. These nations, though many times our size have fantasies of many Singapore's being replicated throughout their lands. His Western contemporaries like Maraget Thatcher cannot stop singing his praises. I remember, Chas Friedman, former American Ambassador to Saudi Arabia describing him as "One of the Most Brilliant Men," in the world. And I was reminded, when Chas Friedman calls someone brilliant, its because they are.
Even though his body is frail, Mr Lee is exceedingly energetic and for the most part, he's proven the case of keeping old people in the job market. Study the man's track record. Look at his arguments and you'll realise for the most part, Mr Lee has been on the right side of nearly every major issue in the world. And he's right, the Mas Selamat affair shows that Singaporeans have become an utterly complacent lot - content to tollerate incompetence from officialdome and unable to tell Mr Lee when he's speaking from cloud nine.
On the whole, I admire Lee Kuan Yew, but as time progresses, I'm worried that Singaporeans have lost the ability to see the fact that he's human and prone to making some major mistakes. As a nation, we're so in awe of him, we can't see when he's blatantly wrong. What's even worse is the fact that some of his rare but "wrong" moves are so self-serving and are in fact destroying the very things he put into our culture, the things that make Singapore's culture so materially successful.
Like him or not, Lee Kuan Yew was never one to shy away from taking personal responsability. When a policy was unpopular, he didn't delegate it to someone else - he fought for the policy in public and won - the merger with Malaysia comes to mind. This was also a leader who brought out the best in people, a man who was willing to let his colleagues argue with him on what they believed in and he had the security to let them shine. Dr Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam would not have done what they did for Singapore had LKY been the control freak who needed everything done his way and to the letter.
Our "Founding" Prime Minister was also a practical man. He knew when to be harsh. You're less likely to become a vandalising Yob if you know you'll get a hidding. He also knew when to turn a blind eye to certain things - as my favourite US Navy boys point out - Geylang is miles better than many American city centres, and we're not even talking about red light districts here. Most importantly, LKY is a man of integrity. While Suharto allowed his kids to plunder the country, Mr Lee has ensured that any wealth aquired by his family is done through hard work.
But if anyone with common sense read his interview in the Straits Times on Saturday 5 March, 2008 - that leader is sitting in the back of the history books. Did he realise what he was saying?
1 - The official government line is that nobody get's blammed for Mas Selamat's escape until the Committee of Enquiry completes its work. Well, that line no longer exist. A man, who's every word is regarded as gospel truth has just put the blame of the escape on the complacency of his handlers - ie prison guards.
2 - If the prison guards were complacent, nobody has asked how a culture complacency came into being. Nobody has been encouraged to come up into the open and admit they made a mistake. We have a Minister who was "Sorry that THIS had to happen," instead of just being "Sorry." Other than that, officialdome has not been proven to be incompetent despite glaring signs that prove otherwise - just think of the mole we knew about 19-days after the escape.
3 - Instead, the blame for the culture of complacency lies with - the general public that expects the government to do everything. Mr Lee and his followers seem to be under the impression that all the public ever does is to whine, in spite of being well treated. Well, Singaporeans may whine alot and the government may be exceedingly generous in many ways. But then again, how does the wonderful government come into being? - Ooooppps, the whiney general public not only voted for the government, but it pays the government exceedingly well. I'm sorry, I do not see how Mr Lee can call it living in reality for the public to accept the necessity of high salaries for competent ministers but to accept it when Ministers make mistakes and don't account for their actions.
Let's bring it down to the most basic level. For ordinary Joes, we go to work and expect to get paid a decent wage. When we do well, we like to get a pat on the back from the boss. When we do badly, we get scolded or at worst - dismissed. However, if you follow Mr Lee's thinking - he goes to work, gets exceedingly well rewarded, comended when he does well but when he does badly - he has the privillege of scolding his boss for expecting too much from him. Singaporeans, at large, are expected to pay a high salary for competent Ministers but when the Ministers don't deliver, we have to understand that the Ministers are only human and prone to error.
The traditional answer from the powers that be, is that I'm thinking like a Westerner - a bloody minded Western Liberal who does not understand that we have our own way of doing things. I wonder if what they're saying is that only Westerners are entitled to expect competent government that they pay for?
My other favourite is - join the opposition if you feel so strongly about it. Well, let's think about this. If you follow this line of thinking - you will need to take a course in carpentry and chairmaking if you sit on an uncomfortable chair because only those with the proper qualifications know what an uncomfortable chair is.
I'm sorry Mr Lee. My name is Tang Li (S7439818i), I live in Blk 27 Marine Crescent, #22-03, Singapore 440027. I have served my National Service for Singapore and I've paid my taxes. The least I expect is a government that does the job it was paid to do and when the government fails to perform, it should take responsability. If you think you have the right to reprimand Singaporeans fo expecting anything less, you should reconsider what you're doing to your legacy. - but remember, it's not my fault I said this....it was Mas Selamat's handlers who are at fault.
 | G'day Li,
Just what I predicted. Some-lowly paid underling is going to get punished. We pay our Ministers the equivalent of what a MNC CEO gets..but not the responsibility. When the MNC does not do well, the CEO resigns, ie he takes responsibility for the MNC's failure and he does the honourable thing. So what's keeping our Ministers from doing the same thing? |
 | I think people need to realise that we've to nip the problem in the bud.These guards,drunk by complacency,triggered this escape and hence,they ought to be punished for the lapse committed.
|
| It's grossly unfair to blame a minister who's contributed so much to Singapore's development-social,political,economic to resign just because of an incident.
|
| There are many layers from the security guards to the minister .. let's try... security guards, supervisor, security manager, prison director,
some director of operations, 1 or 2 more layers, then some probably perm sec/junior minister/, then the home affair minister.. then the Prime Minister
Wondering why are we stopping at the Minister and not Prime Minister.
At which level should we assign the blame for the escape?. At the very most since this is escape from the prison, it should be the director that is overall in charge of the prison. Why should the minister get the blame and everyone calling for his resignation?? Then if he is culpable then why not the Prime Minister?
Yes, MM Lee made some comments but he didnt say the fault lies solely on the Selamat's handler. Yes, the handlers are blamed and rightly so but we still need to wait for the committee to deliver the full report before more comments..
Like if there is theft in a company (thieves break-in) - do you sack the CEO? The most you may sack the security manager for not having installed a better security systems or the security guard (if they are sleeping on the job)
CEO should take responsibility when the company on the whole is not doing well and not on a single security breach.
If I am on the committee, I would look at the whole process of prisoners meeting their relatives and determine if there are inadequacy in the process and checks and if there are (then the prison security management is at fault). If the process is flawless then it has to be human error, people not following established process should be punished. Then we look at if the flawless process could be even further improved to eliminate such human errors. |
| tang li,
I do admire your courage and integrity in writing what you believe. But in this instance, I cannot agree that the sole blame of the escape is with the Minister and he has to take the blame. It doesnt help anything.
If there are many instances of lapses in different prisons then yes, I say sack the minister. |
 | The sole blame should not lie with the Minister. It should lie with his bosses. There's been utterly no leadership from the Holy Trinity, who have stood by Mr Wong's incompetence.
Sure, you don't sack the CEO if there's company theft. However, this is not theft of a few documents. It's a case of a "dangerous" terrorist escaping from a highly secure complex and managing to remain at large for over a month. Resources have been mobilized, the public has been asked to assist the authorities and you have officialdom hiding information. |
| So how? PM to resign as well for standing by an incompetent minister?
How will it help us?
The escape of someone from prison (whoever that person is, or how dangerous) is very rare. He just happen to be Mas Selamat and therefore the panic. If he is just another Tom, Dick or Harry then it is a small incident? No. From the perspective of prison security, an escape is an escape.
Perhaps they were wrong. They should have hand-cuff and leg-cuff selamat 100% of the time and allowed no visitors.. Then he wouldnt escape..
As for "hunting" Selamat down.. it is not a easy task. And who do you think is competent enough to be able to capture him? Which expert (local or foreigner) will dare to stand-out and says that he can capture him? But we cannot say that a minister is incompetent just because he is unable to mobilize a team capture an escapee.
OK. Let's assume we sack the minister for incompetence (not being able to capture Mas Selamat).. now you find the MOST competent minister singapore has to offer .. is there a guarantee that Mas Selemat will be captured? If there is no guarantee, then why makes the previous minister incompetent?
|
| 1 - Resignation of Minister shows that there is accountability at the top. At the very least there should have been the offer to resign but there wasn't. It's quite acceptable for the Ministers to demand high salaries, but they need to show that they're taking responsibility for things that happen in their Ministries.
2 - Escape is an escape, true if he was a Tom, Dick or Harry. But he's not. He's Mas Selamat, a man whom the government deemed too dangerous to risk sending to trial and definitely too dangerous to be kept with normal criminals in Changi prison. Given that the government deemed him this dangerous, the government needs to take responsibility for his incarceration. The fact that he could escape this easily says allot about the entire security system in a prison that is meant to be one of our nation's most secure.
3 - Hunting down Mas Selamat may not be an easy task but it's a task that needs to be done. Because the public is involved, the operation needs a public face. Somebody stand out as the person responsible. Expert may not want to say they can do it, but someone must say public ally, "I'll make it my job." The Minister of Home Affairs has made it his job and put him job under public scrutiny.
4 - Mobilizing a team? Thus far we have 2000 over uniformed police and SAF personnel armed with highly advanced technology looking for an unarmed man (according to the Ministry) with a limp on a 40sq km Island. So far, no result and yet the Ministry insist he's still in Singapore.
5 - Given the resources at the state's disposal and the inability to catch him, it's got to be an issue of strategic competence. If the current strategy is not working then it should be changed. If the strategy provider won't change, we need a new strategy provider. |
| 1. I have had my say. You deemed it necessary for the Minister to resign but didnt explain why not the prison director or the Prime Minister? Anyway, we can agree to disagree with this because it won't get anywhere.
2. Yes. Government has to take responsibility. But who? Let's wait for the committee of inquiry reports before assigning responsibility. Here I believe, complacencies is the main culprit but I shall not comment further.
3, 4 & 5. As you said, we have done all we could and yet could not catch Mas Selamat. The current strategy isnt working and true it needs to be changed. But we can't be sure that a new strategy is not in place and they are not divulging it.
By the way, Singapore is 600 sq km and not 40. And it is a lot bigger than you imagined it to be to hunt for a man. Still it is not an excuse and we should have nailed him somehow or rather. But failure to capture Mas Selamat is not a sign of incompetence.
My own theory:
1. He has left Singapore (most probably to Malaysia) - possibly if he made the escape immediately from prison.
2. He has some friends (non-traceable ones) where he can stay with for a couple of months. If he has food and water (in a HDB for eg), he can stay indoors for months without being detected as long as he don't walk out of the house.
|
| I think the offer of a resignation should have been made and left to the the discretion of the PM on whether to accept it. I think the Minister should have acted quickly - removing the head of the detention centre and head of prison services and appointing new heads. But he didn't - we got his his apology for "This Happening," and then a mobilisation of sorts and that was that. What information that was released was done in a haphazard manner. Who approved for this to go out?
I stand corrected about the size of Singapore. |
| Anyway thanks for the discussion. Although we don't agree I believe there is no harm done.
Personally I don't like the said Minister. I can't say much about his competence. I leave it to the PM to decide. But I agree that the Minister could have acted quickly with regards to the appointment of the head of the prison/detention centre. |
| |
I stand corrected about the size of Singapore. 