Skip to main content

NMP And The Most Important Book: Who Is To Decide? May History Make The Decision?



How can we define whether a person or a book is important, most important or not important at all? Should it be defined according to public opinions, the applicants, the author, or history?  We don’t know.  It is especially difficult to assess the importance of a book when the author is alive. Just like many art pieces, their intrinsic value will only surface (unfortunately) after the passing of the painters.

Lin Yutang wrote an interesting book about Su Tungpo – ‘The Gay Genius – The life and Time of Su Tungpo’. Su’s works were banned and the Song government even imposed fine for possessing the poems, prose and paintings by Su.  However, century later, the government had to withdraw the order and praised Su again with highest respect.  

History is very funny. It records the past for future readings and assessments.  The current happenings may not be the true pictures of the events.  Hopefully candidates who apply for the Nominated Members of Parliament know what they are doing and applying for. And also, those who have said they have written the most important books in their life may have to take notice that this is only their own assessments.  What the future generations think and evaluate may be very different from the current reality.  

Just like Lin said in his book:

<There is a current Chinese saying that final judgment upon a man is possible only when the cover is nailed on his coffin.  (盖棺定论)    
A man’s life is like a drama, and we can judge a drama only when the curtain drops.>  


In explaining the difficulty of assessing a living man, Lin has this to say:

<It is really not so difficult to know a man dead a thousand year ago.  Considering how incomplete our knowledge usually is of people who live in the same city, of even the private life of the mayor, it seems sometimes easier to know a dead man than a living one.  For one thing, the living man’s life is not completed, and one never knows what he is going to do next when a crisis comes.  …… That is why it is so difficult usually to judge a contemporary, whose life is too close to us.>

On blacklist and treatments of Su Tungpo, Lin further described:

<One year after the death of Su Tungpo …, a historically important episode occurred.  This was the establishment of the famous Yuanyu Partisans’ tablet, a symbol and a summing up of the struggles of the whole period. …..  the tablet was a black-list of 309 men, headed by Su Tungpo, of the Yuanyu regime. It banned for ever by imperial order these persons and their children from assuming office in the government. …….. For over a century, the children of the black-listed men boasted that their ancestors’ names were included in the tablet. > 

Yuanyu Tablet Source: ghbl.org.cn 

However, Lin stressed the importance of integrity in writings:

<Su Tungpo’s peculiar position in China’s history was, therefore, based on his courageous stand for his principles and opinions, as well as upon the charm of his poems and prose.  His character and principles constitute the ‘bones’ of his fame, while the charm of style and language forms the ‘flesh and skin’ that embody the beauty of his spirit.  I do not think that we can, at heart, admire a writer lacking in integrity, however brilliant and charming his writings may be. >

Tablet, History and NMP

In 1990, the NMP scheme was introduced when there was an overwhelming majority of PAP MPs in Parliament.

A Nominated Member of Parliament(NMP) is a Member of the Parliament of Singapore who is appointed instead of being elected into office by the people, and who does not belong to any political party or represent any constituency. There are currently nine NMPs in Parliament. The introduction of NMPs in September 1990, effected to bring more independent voices into Parliament, was an important modification of the traditional Westminster parliamentary system that Singapore had. (Source: wikipedia)

Applicants who are aiming for NMP posts have to learn a lesson from the Yuanyu Tablet.  The have to always remind themselves that they are appointed, to be independent and their present is an important modification of the parliament system.

Furthermore, the political situation now is very different from 1990.  The past performance of majority of NMPs and whether the NMP scheme is appropriate at the first place are all still in doubt in the historical perspective. It really takes some courage and motivations to stand before the Select Committee. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...