- A man who cheats on his wife?
- A handicap?
- A man with health problems which he did not reveal?
- A man with little formal education?
- A man who has manic depression?
- An alcoholic?
- An average student?
- A divorcee?
If you said no to any one of those questions you would’ve rejected…
- Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy (rumoured)
- Franklin D Roosevelt
- John F Kennedy
- Abraham Lincoln
- Abraham Lincoln
- Winston Churchill
- Ronald Reagan
- Ronald Reagan
Funny isn’t it. Most of these men would have been classified by the PAP as bad candidates for them and the opposition. Yet these men were able to be leaders of their country when their country needed them. They kept their flaws with them.
Lincoln would cry when he heard his good friend died in the fisrt battle of the civil war. When people would visit him he would be so depressed. Yet despite that crippling depression, he managed to hold a nation together by sheer will. Whatever the intentions of the Emancipation Proclaimation it went further than what folks in the North wanted> This was no return to the status quo.
FDR overcame disability to lead America through WW2. He cheated on his wife too, before his disability if that helps. He came up with the New Deal which helped his country out of the depression.
Winston Churchill was drunk often. No one would deny that. Yet when he needed to be he was sober. He also led a nation that looked like it was the last place of hope in a sea of facism. Everyone else had fallen or capitulated. The Battle of Britain was arguably a fight like none other. Britain was under siege, and yet he managed to keep them calm.
JFK kept the world from a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. Yet it was acknowledge that he was a bit of a philandering soul. He also kept an illness from the public. Whether his presidency was a good one or not, he kept the world from an atomic disaster.
Ronald Reagan, whatever his legacy was, kept America believing that it could win the fight. He took a disheartened nation and lifted their spirits. Kept them fighting against the Communists. Revitalised them long enough to see their opponents fold first.
All of them seriously would fail the PAP’s stringent standards. Now that the opposition has recruited men and women of caliber, the PAP has gone on to say that they are inexperienced. Interesting considering that alot of the new PAP MPs are inexperienced too. Experience in government comes from ruling long enough. The PAP was inexperienced in the 1950s when it first took over. Labour had been out of office for a long time before coming to victory in the 1990s. Similarly the Republicans had been in opposition in the Cold War years until the 1990s. All parties are inexperienced if before actually winning.
Having heard the opposition rallies and read the ruling party’s opinion in the Singapore press, I feel very uninspired. Neither side inspires me. The rallies are not quite rallying in effect for me. It does not inspire me. It does not touch me at an emotional level. Unlike Churchill’s blood, toil, tears and sweat speech or Kennedy’s ask not what your country can do for you speech, none of those speeches inspire me. Maybe I expect too much from politicians, but every now and then we need stirring orations. Maybe the greatest generation and the great generation is over. Maybe it’s just the good and average generations’ turn.
I almost feel like the first non-PAP party to win control of Parliament would be led by a chrismatic orator. I feel to beat the incumbent is to reframe the entire election. Up until now, the opposition has been uninspiring and playing within the frame that the PAP has framed elections to be. Not that the PAP is inspiring at all. In fact gone are those days. Even MM Lee is less inspiring to me these days. Maybe the heady days of independence are over, but still can we not inspire the soul of a nation beyond its infancy? So there is no war, no threats, but is it not the greatest test of a leader if he can inspire a nation in peaceful mundane times? When MM Lee cried, now that touched the soul of a new nation. When he gave that sad speech, it moved the soul of a nation, it moves mine when i see it. Politics is about the details, but it is also about the big picture. Having followed the 2001 and 1997 elections closely (yes I stayed awake for the 1997 elections at the expense of sleep although the next day was the first day of JC), it always bothered me that no one really inspired me. I love my country, but I just didn’t feel anyone reached out and touched me in a personal way. A good leader would touch the hearts of the people, not just the minds.
It just seems so petty and tit-for-tat. You say something, I say something in reply. No one is saying something that is different. No one is digging deep into the national psyche and saying something that rises above petty, daily politics. I need a leader, a true leader of people. Maybe I’ve come to expect too much, having been in a fraternity where elections truly are about the soul of the organisation. I always felt the way to lead was to move the soul. To rouse the spirit of those who elect to follow you. To rise above the daily grind and appeal to a higher ideal…
I ramble… Yet this bothers me so much, beyond policy, beyond supporting the underdog, this is about true leadership… Every generation needs a great leader, where is my generation’s Leader to follow?
Unfortunately, right now stirring orations can get your pants sued off :p
Right now, what is needed is someone to play without the unfair playing field that has been set by the PAP and beat them at it. That’s when things will start to change.
By: callandor on May 3, 2006
at 11:37 pm
I feel so much the same. I so love Singapore but ……
By: desmond on May 4, 2006
at 8:18 pm
I agree with the tit-for-tat part. It’s like watching a childish squabble.
By: j on May 4, 2006
at 8:26 pm
Inspire? Sorry, Singaporeans prefer somebody who dishes out the goodies, and not someone with ideals.
Sad reality, but to be frank, we need something to shake us up before we wake up.
By: pkchukiss on May 4, 2006
at 10:59 pm
if i am not wrong, FDR hid his handicap from the american public for as long as possible. thus the americans did not knowingly elect a handicap person.
By: whitebear on May 4, 2006
at 11:00 pm
Whitebear- you are right… but of course that is a bigger smear on his character is it not? At least by PAP standards
By: Postmaster-General on May 5, 2006
at 2:53 am
It’s not just Singapore. Candidates with Lincoln and FDR’s faults would never be elected in the US these days either. Instead of real people, we insist on candidates who are perfect on paper and who then turn out to be terrible presidents. What a world.
By: venitha on May 5, 2006
at 8:58 am
There are 4 types of voters - new, loyal, anti-loyal and switchers. New voters are those post 65ers. They may vote according to their feelings and experience of govt policies which affected them or their families. Loyal are those who are pro-PAP and will always remain so. Anti-loyal (between 20% to 25%)are for the Opposition due to their feelings for the underdog and may be bad affected by govt policies. Switchers are those (maybe about 20% to 40%)who may swing towards any parties who can meet their needs and
wants at this general election.
Vote wisely. Every vote counts. Some seats were won by 600 to 700 votes in previous elections.
By: Danny on May 5, 2006
at 1:33 pm
Don’t judge leaders by their backgrounds or ridiculous habits. We all have sins and faults that we don’t even know exist.
What truly matters is “character” - The quality of character and charisma must be within these leaders. A leader is someone who leads with passion and a vision; a person whose driving force is his determination, right attitute and compassion.
Leaders are our champions.
And champions are not those who never fail; but they are the ones who never quits.
By: Thomas on May 5, 2006
at 4:27 pm
do you know of a man who since risen to power had never lost a single costly battle? a man who knows no vice nor been slayed by man’s base nature or by deadly substance? a man who is so white and guarded, he seems to have a model marriage and family life? a man who is sentimental enough to weep at a friend’s funeral?
but can such a perfect man know how to weep for many others who live broken lives?can such a man lift others who are less fortunate than him who knows no great weaknesses?
great strengths come from great weaknesses. if someone can’t weep with you, he maybe someone who tend to whip you instead. your stomach may be fed; your heads sheltered;he may make you feel secure. but when you die inside, he sheds no tears!
he is least LIKELY to be a liberator!
By: woody on May 5, 2006
at 10:29 pm
I agree with Thomas. Leaders are not perfect beings, they have faults as well. What’s important is his/her quality of character with respect to leading the country.
I don’t quite agree wtih Woody though.. there’s no perfect man! If he/she appears perfect, that’s just a perception. He/she would surely have faults, have had problems (that may already have been overcome).
hehz.. dad told me that LKY is mildly dyslexic. And that his command of mandarin and dialects was so terrible, when dad was a kid watching those rallies, he laughed at LKY. Yet he won the votes of many Chinese-educated voters.
I think ordeals can strengthen a person’s character. But if you think that only people who’s been in your shoes can weep for you, then all counsellors should be made to undergo abortion, broken marriages, drug abuse?
Pmg, in the list above, did you specially omit Hitler? Usually to drive home the point, the list includes last point “or someone who is vegetarian, fought in the war”
Then the last person turns out to be Adolf Hilter.
By: kookabaru on May 6, 2006
at 4:46 pm
Yes he was dyslexic, which is no mean feat. But him winning the Chinese vote is simple. Initially he sucked up to the communists to win votes. Then when they disagreed he used the powers of state to get rid of them. They made the mistake of not taking their 13 seats. Also the early PAP had lots of Chinese educated MPs, also had MPs who were not degree holders and stuff. But they of course were slowly retired as more and more graduates became available.
I tried to put in positive role models. We can list Stalin as former seminarian. But I’m trying to go with the positive. My knowledge of French and German leaders is of course much weaker.
By: Postmaster-General on May 6, 2006
at 5:02 pm
hee.. but putting in negative ones to contrast puts the point across more bluntly?
the early election stuff regarding communists, yep I’ve heard abt it from my dad. cos he used to be totally peeved about it.
By: kookabaru on May 6, 2006
at 11:46 pm