Skip to main content

The Education of ‘Crisis Mentality’ and the PAP Succession Plan


Do Singaporeans have crisis mentality? In the video below, a young lady from China seems to suggest Singaporeans do not have crisis mentality.  



What is crisis mentality? A Google search gives the following meanings:

#They often cost large amounts of time, money, emotional distress, and even relationships! Soon a lifestyle is created, and your way of thinking turns into what psychologists call a “crisis mentality,” meaning that you can only function from one crisis to another.

#“state of continuous panic when challenged.”

#"crisis mentality" quite means "someone who is always thinking the worst will happen"

    #A combination of danger and opportunity
 
Image result for crisis mentality Chinese meaning

In a unique Singapore education, crisis mentality can also mean fear, ‘kiasu’, ‘kiasi’ as explained below:   

[SINGAPORE: Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Kuik Shiao-Yin on Tuesday (Apr 5) called for the eradication of Singapore’s “kiasu” (Singlish for being afraid to lose) culture, describing it as a national habit of fear that poses a cultural roadblock to transformation and at great cost to the economy.

“Fear has been a favourite motivational tool of many of our parents, teachers, bosses and even politicians,” Ms Kuik told Parliament on the second day of Budget debates. “Managed well, fear is a perfectly healthy kick in the pants to force us out of complacency and into action. Fear compels us to man up, save more, study hard, work long. Fear in that sense is an emotion that does help us take care of our future.”
“But it loses these powerful positive effects when it goes beyond a temporary emotion we feel, to a permanent disposition we live in. When fear becomes part of our emotional and cultural DNA, we lock ourselves into a habit of self-limiting behaviours.”
(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-should-kill/2667816.html)

In over 50 years, our education system has consistently produced ‘fear’ and ‘kiasu’ mentality to Singaporeans. We are not lacking in crisis mentality. We are having the wrong education of crisis mentality.   We have been educated by the People’s Action Party to have pessimistic crisis mentality - fear, kiasu, kiasi, seeing danger not opportunity.

We fail to see the opportunity, the alternative and the change. This perhaps is what the Chinese lady’s view of Singaporeans. There is no crisis mentality here.   

In actual fact, Singapore is having a wrong kind (pessimistic) of crisis mentality:

#We only know one political party that can govern Singapore. There is no alternative.

#We are so afraid of losing this party.

#We look only at the danger of losing this party and fail to see the opportunity of it.

#Anything or anybody goes against this party is bad or even anti-Singapore.
  

The PAP government, through social engineering, media, education, culture …, has successfully planted the pessimistic crisis mentality into the minds of Singaporeans.

What is the ultimate end of this negative crisis mentality education?

Succession plan and the continued one-party state.

When moving the constitutional amendments of the Elected Presidency, PM Lee explains:

"Since the elected presidency began, I have been operating the mechanism that we designed, and discovering its glitches.
"I helped to refine and amend the scheme as we went along," he said during the debate on the proposed changes to the elected presidency under the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.
While the institution has been functioning well, he added, the changes made now are in the long-term interests of Singapore and will strengthen the elected presidency, which is an important stabiliser in the political system.
But further changes will still be needed in the future as the system has to be continually refined, he said. (reach.gov.sg)

The explanation on the refinements and changes to EP is a pessimistic crisis mentality. It looks at the negative side (fear, kiasu, kiasi) and warns Singaporeans the danger ahead. Has PM Lee mentioned about the opportunity, the positive of the old system?

Throughout the Chinese history (perhaps also for other civilisations), as explained in my previous post, all capable Chinese emperors had put crisis mentality and succession plan as their top priority. They were afraid the dynasty they built would disappear after their deaths. However, none of them had succeeded in doing so.

Fear, kiasu, kiasi, and prevention succession plan can not sustain a long-live dynasty.  Can the PAP be the odd? And make a difference.  

It is time we educate ourselves with the right and positive crisis mentality as there is no such thing called long-live PAP.

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...