OPINION: "Quenching the Thirst by thinking of Plums", by Dr. Wong Wee Nam, 25 August 2017

望梅止渴

Quenching The Thirst By thinking Of Plums, by Dr. Wong Wee Nam

Two days ago I wrote an article on the PM’s National Day Rally 2017 Speech in which I had expressed my puzzlement over his choice of three subjects to speak. To me they were low priority topics in view of the many issues bothering Singaporeans like the economy, terrorism and the poor health of the MRT system.

Isn’t he not worried that the problems may cost the PAP votes? Apparently not. If anything it has raised his status a bit. To the 70% the first part established the PM as being very concerned to give Singapore’s future citizens a headstart over the rest of the world.

In the second part, he is seen as a very caring father figure who will go the distance to look after their health, and in the third he is going to modernize the country making us proud.

Whether these three policies will bear fruit eventually will be left to be seen.

Yes, life has been hard for the average citizen, with these visions of the future, they give them hope amidst their misery. Let the voters think of their children and grandchildren’s future. Voters think less of their problems than worry about the future generations. Whatever pains that are present in 2016/17 will be mitigated by the glorious years that would come in 2022. Whether we will achieve our goal is another matter. Doesn’t this remind us of “The Swiss Standard of Living” aspiration?

I am a believer of good early pre-school education. The aim must be to prepare the lower-income student adequate enough to bring him/ her to the same starting line as the rest of the cohort. Otherwise it has failed. Those who can afford can go to the private play schools and kindergartens, supplemented by good nutrition, good home environment and extracurricular/classes like swimming, ballet, art and holidays, get a head start. Even at the pre-school level, there is already a difference in mental and social development between the various social classes and a disparity in linguistic and motor abilities even before they start. 

For the children of the poor, English is a second language and if they have not mastered this in pre-school, they would be greatly disadvantaged when they start school. The formal school would also not be able to remedy this deficiency because the classes, too, are big and teachers are rushing to finish the syllabus. Not only will they struggle with English, they will also have to struggle with problem mathematics and in understanding science that uses English.

In 2009, research by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) showed that reading skills are more reliable predictors of economic and social well-being than the number of years spent in school or in post-formal education. Moreover, when in school, it is not likely for a child to develop the self-respect without some mastery of reading and verbal skills. Only with a good pre-school foundation can this gap be closed.

According to a working paper, Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships, by the Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, “Children who develop warm, positive relationships with their kindergarten teachers are more excited about learning, more positive about coming to school, more self-confident and achieve more in the classroom.”

For children of the lower social class, therefore, there should be specialised pre-school centres, adequately financed and run by the state, with well-trained professional teachers and specially-designed programmes. 

The class size should be small enough so that the teacher can pay attention to each and every child’s needs and the curriculum should be cognitive-orientated. Teachers must be trained to have the skills and attributes to detect and help the child overcome common behavioural problems so that the relationship would be one that is nurturing, stimulating and reliable.

With such a big responsibility, the teachers must be paid adequately so as to encourage them to stay in the profession and accumulate more experience and be a better teacher with time.

Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child recommended that the early childhood education include:

1. All early childhood programs must balance their focus on cognition and literary skills with significant attention to emotional and social development;

2. The science of early emotional and social development must be incorporated into services in support of parents;

3. Providers of early care and education must have sufficient knowledge and skills to help children who present with early emotional problems early on, particularly those who exhibit significant aggression or difficulties with attention and “hyperactivity’;

4. Expertise in early identification, assessment and clinical treatment must be incorporated into existing intervention programmes; and

5. Suspected abuse or neglect must be investigated.

In today’s world, knowledge and technology are advancing so rapidly that if any individual is unable to keep abreast, he/she will be left far behind. The change is especially rapid in education.

The children of today must be taught to live in tomorrow’s world. Otherwise, society will not only have to shoulder the burden of the ageing population but also a huge percentage of an inadequately educated population.

The more fundamental solutions would be to reduce income inequality, give the poor a decent income, make healthcare affordable. 

Can a person in misery be made to forget his/her suffering with some hope? Will this exercise work again? It is hard to say. However, it worked many centuries ago.

During the period of the Three Kingdoms, Cao Cao led his troops on an expedition and had to march through a wilderness of barren rocks. It was summer and the weather was extremely hot. After a while, with the scorching sun burning down on them, the soldiers became very drained and thirsty. They were almost on the verge of mutiny.

Cao Cao knew that if he did not solve this problem, he would have a rebellion on his hands. Suddenly he had a brain wave. Urging his men, he called out, “There is a big forest of plums ahead. The plums there are juicy and very sour. We can have a feast of sweet and sour plums to quench out thirst once we go over this hill.”

On hearing this, the soldiers started to salivate profusely. The very thought of sour plums made they mouth water. Their thirsts were temporarily quenched and with the morale greatly raised, they managed to continue to march forward.

From this story, people have derived the phrase “quenching thirst by watching plums” (望梅止渴) to refer to consoling oneself with hopes.

Given the enormous scope of the pre-school problem, raising the issue really makes the people think less of the present and more of the future. They will quench their thirst with imagery of the plums. Can you beat that?

[Dr. Wong Wee Nam stood for the National Solidarity Party in Hong Kah GRC at the 1997 General Election. He is presently an opposition supporter and activist. This posting is posted here with his kind written permission.]

My March 2010 interview with Dr. Wong can be read on this website at the following link: 

http://joochiatroadonline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/interview-my-interview-with-dr-wong-wee.html

Dr Kieran James (left) and Dr Wong Wee Nam, SDP's 31st Anniversary Dinner, Fort Canning Park, 19 February 2011

INTERVIEW: My interview with Dr Wong Wee Nam (Singapore Democratic Party/ ex-NSP), 1/3/2010.

Dr Kieran James (left) and Dr Wong Wee Nam, SDP's 31st Anniversary Dinner, Fort Canning Park, 19 February 2011.

My interview with Dr Wong Wee Nam (Singapore Democratic Party activist, National Solidarity Party 1997 General Election, candidate for Hong Kah GRC).

Location: Tiong Bahru Market (Seng Poh Market), Singapore.

Date: Monday, 1 March 2010.

By Dr Kieran James.

Question 1: Kieran James: Explain the events in your life that caused you to become an opposition supporter.

Wong Wee Nam1: Actually I’m not a very political person. I found the Government getting more and more authoritarian as the years go by. So I said: “I criticize opposition for not producing good candidates so I ask myself: why do I criticize opposition when I’m not standing for election?” So as to try to improve the situation I decided I must do something. So I joined the NSP [1996]. We did not expect much, it’s not a dinner party, [and] no-one gives you an easy time. People in established positions such as myself will not want to go for election contests. We all think “what’s the point?” The system benefits you, why put your head on the chopping block? Being arrested is always hanging over your head and being sued for defamation. We did not expect anything. We chose Hong Kah [GRC; 1997 General Election]. Suddenly a group of us was quite credible – one other doctor, one businessman. It was a pretty credible slate so to speak. It surprised everyone. The press was excited at that time. The Straits Times said “we will give you good coverage”. The Editorial Board invited us for lunch and promised us good coverage. Once the battle got started our speeches were never reported in the press. We did not get fair publicity or the publicity we needed. Of course we lost; [final vote was] 31% or 32%.

KJ: What factors do you think explain your final result?

WWN: The tactic is to find a demon to divert all the attention to killing the demon. Tang [Liang Hong] was part of the Establishment in a way, you know. He does all the help in the cultural associations. At the time the fear factor was very great. [KJ note: For those young readers growing up in this modern era when Workers’ Party wins seats and scores 45%+ in losing contests it may be hard to imagine how strong the fear-factor still was as late as 1997 when Lee Hsien Loong had not yet become PM and the internet was still in its infancy.] I had a pair of husband-and-wife, young professionals working in the private sector, calling me up after the GE and telling me “I’m sorry, Dr. Wong, we wanted to vote for you but the moment we went in our names were called out” (procedurally, to register). This was meant to be shouted to another official, these were first-time voters, [and] they were so shocked. He said: “I was so paralysed and changed my mind and voted against you”. I said: “Why are you afraid?” He said: “serial number”. I said: “will they take action?” He said: “it’s possible”. I said: “why harass 100,000 voters? They will harass me [if they harass anybody]”. One of my friends for three years he dare not confront me and said: “I’m sorry”.

KJ: What was the effect of the PAP announcing that priority for HDB flat upgrading would go to pro-PAP precincts?

WWN: We lost votes definitely due to the upgrading promise. The ground response was good. We thought we might get a good result, we told each other. Two days before voting the Government announced counting of votes was by precinct, not whole constituency. We are easily identifiable. It suddenly shocked the voters. It forced them to reconsider. It did swing the votes for the PAP. In a small constituency it’s easier for the incumbent. They have a better rapport with the residents. The GRC is definitely designed to make it easier for PAP to win. When the GRC becomes larger it’s no longer based on personality.

KJ: What was the reaction of the PAP to the win in Hong Kah GRC?

WWN: The party was jubilant because they defeated us. All of them got some official positions.

KJ: How about the reaction of the NSP leadership?

WWN: We are OK, the NSP leadership. Just before this precinct issue, we were happy and optimistic. After this we said: “there’s no point, we’re not going to win anymore”. We more or less expected the result, [and] we were not in any way disappointed.  Tan Chee Kien, leader of NSP, Chairman, he was on the ticket in Hong Kah.

KJ2: What do you think will happen to Singapore politics in next 10-15 years and how many seats will the opposition win at next election?

WWN2: I think we will probably have to go through a very uncertain phase. There will be a lot of changes. The Strong Man [Mr. Lee Kuan Yew] will not be around realistically. He is the one who still calls the shots. Within the PAP there may not be a natural leader who comes out to replace him. Even in the GRC system you cannot produce a natural leader. I have worked with grassroots organizations. Say you are a member of a GRC team and you are a rebellious person, GRC MP, you cannot question the Government or Minister too much. You have to quietly retire if you rebel. It is not like you are Single Member Constituency. At that time I [hypothetical PAP MP in SMC] would not be afraid to speak my mind, if fired from PAP I would contest as an independent or opposition. My personality can still shine through. To contest GRC you cannot use your personality. You need four other running mates. If you are a single member PAP MP and they retire it, you will be absorbed into a GRC for fear (a) they do not need to get another new person, [and] (b) to stop the old [former] MP contesting the constituency on another ticket. So the GRC dampens any political ambitions of the MPs. Under the Constitution there must be at least nine single seats, they will increase to twelve. How they do the GRC is up to them [PAP].

KJ: Is a PAP internal split possible in the future, say between liberals and right-wingers?

WWN: I think the PAP, as it is now, how they recruit members, how the party is constructed, I think you get technocrats more than leaders. There are no true political leaders now to give you the differences and split the party. They are all trained to think the same. Most of them are technocrats. There are no true leaders that can emerge from this group of people. On the opposition side there will still be the same fragmented group of people. In next 10-20 years we will see messiness. I think the opposition can win more seats as they attract people with stronger political views, better leadership qualities, and initiative. If PAP opens up its political structures maybe they can attract good people as well. Now they choose the people. Many are reluctant politicians. When they approach PAP candidates they choose those out of the party [occupying] high positions [in society]. These people are not sure, not natural political leaders; [they] have to ask their families first, etc.     

KJ3: What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition party you are most closely involved with, that is the SDP?

WWN3: Weaknesses: They have been weakened by their own internal quarrels between Chee and Chiam [See Tong] and Chee [Soon Juan]. Initially [when] they won the three seats i[at the] 1991 election they were on the rise. Chiam said: “come and join me”. He said: “I have 25 good people onboard”. Because of internal disputes things became fragmented. The PAP made sure Chee gets demonized. It weakened the party. At one time they were demonized so badly no-one wanted to join them, there was no true leadership, [only] misfits, deviants on the fringe of the political scene. This was 1996 onwards. In fact, at that time, one Straits Times reporter called me and asked me “what do you think of Chee?” She said: “He is finished, right?” I said: “not really, he’s quite an intelligent person, he has a political view, he is young and fresh, age is on his side”, then he was in early-30s. I said: “don’t write him off so quickly”. They pictured him as a totally dejected man. They [take the] worst picture of you and put in the papers.

The SDP now has strengths. They have a clear-cut ideology. I think all along SDP ideology about democracy has always been the same. Chee made it more obvious. They have a core of people, dedicated group with a common cause to protect human rights, [and] speak up for the poor. The whole group believes in it which I don’t see in other political parties. NSP still has a group but I did not know what they stand for. I told them they need a cause. People joined because it was not radical, it is like a local club. You must identify your visions and your causes and people must agree to basic fundamental things. I told Chiam before: “I don’t care what you sell, fish porridge or whatever, you must concentrate on selling what we are selling or we keep quarrelling about peripheral issues and you never get the party moving”. In the last four to five years [i.e. since 2005-06] SDP have become more organized and can attract lots of young and quite dedicated people with some political sense, knowing what is human rights and democracy. Not a lot of young people can think like that, Singaporeans are so materialistic, they can’t think about abstract things. Young people in SDP have political sense. They are dedicated, they will be the future of the party, they are willing to sacrifice all, [and] to join the SDP is quite a sacrifice. The dinner [SDP’s 30^th Anniversary Dinner held on 27 February 2010] managed to feature in the newspaper yesterday, everyone was quite surprised. Chee’s speech and photo and SDP photo and news never appear but suddenly one big page and colour photo of SDP exco [Central Executive Committee] and report on speeches and dinner. This was a great departure. It was quite positive. Even the Chinese paper carried an interview with CSJ. I was telling one friend: “I saw the reporter, young reporter”. I said “the news will not see the light of day” but I was surprised.

It could be a problem as SDP attracts English-educated. They do try to give messages in Mandarin, it takes time I suppose. NSP has a lot of Mandarin speaking people in the party. NSP does not attract the overseas English educated, they are seen as Chinese-oriented party, [and] they cannot get members of other races. I brought Mr. [CK] Tan [to SDP’s 30^th Anniversary Dinner held on 27 February 2010], he was surprised to see so many Indians and Malays. WP has the advantage that they started, David Marshall, JBJ. The socialistic ideology attracted. The Chinese base of Barisan Sosialis threw their lot in with WP; this was the Chinese-educated base, Dr. Lee Siew Choh [1917-2002], Chairman of Barisan Sosialis, we call him “the other Lee” [KJ note: After Barisan Sosialis merged with WP in 1988, Lee stood as a WP candidate in the 1988 General Election and became Singapore’s first Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), serving in this role until 1991.]

The SDP website is very good. I was talking to intelligentsia and they say SDP is the only political site that gives food for thought, all the rest are nothing.

KJ4: What do the opposition parties need to do to go from 25% to 50.1% and what type of people make up that next 25% that the opposition must win over?

WWN4: I held a forum, I said the opposition are too fragmented, they look very small. I can give [you an] analogy: PAP is super hyper-market, you are just neighbourhood provision shop. How can you fight? The only thing you need to do:  come together under one umbrella, Alliance [Singapore Democratic Alliance] or some other. Example is in Malaysia. They nearly have taken over the government. Here it would make a huge political impact. If you want to keep your own fiefdom you cannot make any progress. I told Chiam, he approached me to contest for GRC. I said: “what’s your idea in contesting small GRC? That is not a long-term solution. You want to leave a legacy? Then why not get everyone together and contest under one umbrella?” I said: “Chiam, you can do it; you are a respected MP, why don’t you get everyone together? Have separate parties but have a big umbrella for the whole of Singapore. Then you can choose whichever candidates from every party. Get you and Low [Thia Khiang] together, strengthen your ticket, [and] don’t stick to SPP”. He is worried of people making use of him. I said: “we are talking about advantage to everyone”. He brought in the Chee factor. I said: “I can arrange a meeting and you both shake hands and we can start”. He said: “the press will play this up”. He said: “it does not look good to mess around with Chee”. I said: “if you ever shake hands with Chee, it will have national impact, two enemies come together to fight PAP”. He said he would think about it and get back to me. I said: “unless you get a united front I won’t waste my time”. A fragment will not solve Singapore’s long-term problem.

Our interview location, Monday, 1 March 2010.

The 25-30% are hardcore [opposition supporters], they will still vote for a monkey, PAP has hardcore support of 40%. The rest are fence-sitters, [they] will see how their vote will help selves and family and nation. You are just going to get pockets of guerrilla fighters. This group go for stability, status quo. You must be seen as big party, as equal to PAP. These people want moderate, not hard. They would not mind giving input intellectually provided you have a big party. Now some want to contest, they don’t know which party to join. Who shall I help? It’s very confusing. If you have clear vision, this second 25% will give you their support and their votes. I do hope we come to the stage where young people can communicate with each other and decide they must come together and forget the old quarrels. This election [2011 GE] is not easy to guess results. Now they have a cooling-off period. I don’t know how they will use it. I hope they get eight seats, it’s a possibility – possibly we can win one GRC and three singles, that is eight. At the moment two hot GRCs are Tampines and Bishan-Toa Payoh, the opposition are gunning for these. Chee has a keen mind; he could ask many questions in parliament. It’s a pity he will not be able to stand.

***End of interview [interview time: 1 hour and 15 minutes]***