MG Chan Chun Sing further sabotages the legitimacy of PAP superdominance

Acting Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Chan Chun Sing speaking at a dialogue session at Jurong Spring Community Club.

Channel News Asia: Pay not a primary factor for PAP team: Chan Chun Sing

“I don’t think anyone of them comes here for the money. They come here to provide a better life for the next generation… One of the reasons why I stepped forward was because I know I’m joining a team of people that are not here for the money.”

That’s great.

He added that the key is to find the right balance.

He said: “Money should not be the one (factor) to attract them in. On the other hand, money should also not be the bugbear to deter them.

This is where it gets a little bit interesting, or fishy…

“(For example,) you go to Peach Garden, you eat the S$10 XO Sauce chye tow kuay (fried carrot cake), you can be quite happy right? Because you are satisfied with the service and so on. On the other hand, you can go to a hawker centre, even if they charge you S$1.50, you might not want to eat it if the quality is not good.”

BAM! Own goal! Once again, my favourite MG Chan Chun Sing has provided a beautiful answer that carries within it the keys to the destruction of the status quo. (You can check out the last time he did this here.)

Okay, you’re thinking. What is Visa talking about? What has he been smoking, and can I have some? Wait, wait- let me explain. Chun Sing’s argument is as follows:

1: People enjoy $10 carrot cake because the quality is good.

2: People don’t like $1.50 carrot cake because the quality is not good. 

The food analogy is particularly brilliant, because EVERY Singaporean knows- the best food isn’t necessarily the most expensive.

In fact, the best food is often holed up somewhere in some ulu coffeeshop, made by some uncle who’s using his grandfather’s secret recipe. The food is made with passion, and love. In comparison, the most expensive food often sucks, because the chefs feel like they’ve “made it”, and don’t need to try anymore.

Of course, not all cheap food is good and not all expensive food is lousy. But the point is, the co-relation is senseless. Good food is good food, regardless of cost. And good civil servants are good civil servants, regardless of pay. In fact, there is substantial scientific evidence that suggests that higher pay equates to worse performance, in anything that involves non-menial tasks.

Sometimes I wonder if MG Chan is secretly doing a grand covert operation. There were many writers and thinkers in the past, for instance, who defended the Church- because the Church was all-powerful, and could destroy your life and livelihood if it wished (why does that sound familiar?).

So what many of them did was pretty genius- they defended the Church, (collecting their pay in the process- why does that sound familiar again?) and attacked science, rationalism, atheism and all of the wonderful things we have today.

But they used weak, flimsy arguments for their defense, and they made themselves look like idiots against the elegant effectiveness of the opposition. The Church wasn’t sure what to think, because they professed support and claimed loyalty.

The philosopher’s intellectual integrity was not compromised- future generations would learn of their wisdom. And they lived happy, comfortable lives. I wonder if MG Chan is doing the same. That would be freaking awesome.

Let me explain. What MG Chan here is doing is something universal rather than local. He’s arguing that pay is not related to quality. You could see that as self-sabotaging, but that’s only if we assume that the PAP’s goal is to maintain the status quo.

Ultimately, what Chun Sing is doing here is that he’s helping Singaporeans see that quality matters, not pay. I described it as an own goal for the PAP. But really, the PAP is large and complex, and no monolith. It’s an own goal for the negative elements of the PAP. And that’s a good thing for everybody- except, of course, the negative elements of the PAP.

So MG Chan is only a moron if he expects his lot to be bettered by trying to defend a sinking ship. He could be a genius who’s thinking much further than anybody else at this point. And here’s the deal- you don’t become Chief of Army through political naivete. He’s very well educated. He might seem silly now- or he might be sowing the seeds for a new future, for Singapore and the PAP.

Personally, I’m quite excited to see how things turn out.

About Visakan Veerasamy

I work at ReferralCandy, write at PoachedMag and blog at... here. This is my blog. You can find me on Twitter at @visakanv. I deactivated my Facebook account a while ago because the noise was too much for me to handle. How does this authorship nonsense work?
This entry was posted in Singapore and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to MG Chan Chun Sing further sabotages the legitimacy of PAP superdominance

  1. huyh says:

    Hey, I am surprised that you know of it to use the example of the Church. Have you also read of Jean Meslier, the atheist priest ?

  2. KL says:

    FYI BG Chan Chun seng is the next prime minister candidate for the future according to the straits times.

    • mola says:

      Oh shit, don’t tell us we need to Kee Chiu when we sing the national anthem and recite the pledge of Aspiration … LOL

  3. Benedict James Wee says:

    I was wholly supportive of the point you were trying to make until you mentioned the parallel with the Church. My assumption is that you’re trying to talk about the Catholic Church and if so I think you’re making very uneducated parallels to the Singapore government. I was hoping you could provide a better understanding of your statements.

    “There were many writers and thinkers in the past, for instance, who defended the Church- because the Church was all-powerful, and could destroy your life and livelihood if it wished (why does that sound familiar?).”

    Who are these people who you claimed were so “afraid” of the Church that they defend it?

    “So what many of them did was pretty genius- they defended the Church, (collecting their pay in the process- why does that sound familiar again?) and attacked science, rationalism, atheism and all of the wonderful things we have today.”

    You claim the Church paid these people but once again who were these people and can you explain the payment structure of the Church? You also claim they attacked science, rationalism, atheism and all the wonderful things we have today. Could you cite a couple of sentences for each topic you brought up?

    “But they used weak, flimsy arguments for their defense, and they made themselves look like idiots against the elegant effectiveness of the opposition. The Church wasn’t sure what to think, because they professed support and claimed loyalty.”

    Could you also cite a couple of these flimsy arguments you are talking about?

    Thank you,
    Ben

    • visa says:

      Hi Ben!

      I really appreciate your response, so I want to give you a really proper response in turn, so I hope you’ll give me some time to put everything together! I do want to be clear that I have nothing against religion per se, only the way in which it was exploited to repress people. (And it still is, in some places, in some ways.)

      Thank you for being civil! I will do my best to give you what you’re asking for.

      But perhaps before I do that, I might be able to share something with you that might give you some insight into where I’m coming from:

      http://www.visakanv.com/blog/3136/structural-failings-of-conventional-organizations/

      So it’s not so much about any specific organization, but organizations in general. Examples later, when I’m not exhausted from firing guns all day!

      Thank you,
      Visa

      • Benedict James Wee says:

        Hello Visa,

        Thanks for replying to my questions, I eagerly await a response from you.

        I can’t comment about the other faiths except for the Catholic one which I assume you are referring to in this blog. It is very common for people to think that the (Catholic) Church has repressed people but I can assure you that if you have any concerns that it parallels our country’s government in terms of tyranny, it is mostly hearsay and people making false claims with no supported evidence. Nonetheless I am sincerely interested in those claims you have made and hope to clarify them when you get a chance to reply.

        Cheers,
        Ben

        • Ben10 says:

          Strange that Catholics require mountains of evidence for anything that is mentioned against their faith (even though it is not directed at them). But need no or extremely little evidence whatsoever to believe in the existence of Jesus, creationism, immaculate conception, the ineffectiveness of condoms blah blah. And categorically deny the Spanish Inquisition ever happened.

          There’s a double standard going on here.

          • visa says:

            We are all hypocrites, myself included n_n

          • Benedict James Wee says:

            Hello Ben10,

            1) Are you suggesting that we’re free to make accusations without giving proof and not allowing the accused party a chance to defend itself?

            2) If so does that mean that I am free to say things like “all Muslims are terrorists” and reject any attempts at people of their faith to explain their stance on the situation?

            3) You also mentioned that me requesting clarification on the statements Visa made are “mountainous”, what would you consider “mole-hill” requests then?

            As for your accusations about Catholics and what we believe, I’d be more than happy to explain those tenants of our faith should you need clarification but bear in mind that these things require lengthy and educated discourses and like all disciplines (medicine, law, science, philosophy etc.), they require a basic foundation before attempting to even understand them.

            After all, you do not tell the doctor what he/she should do when he’s giving you a checkup nor tell an astrophysicist how the universe works. To do so would be arrogance. Such heavy matters should be approached with humility and a willingness to understand. Virtues which you seem to lack from this comment you made.

            If you wish for basic knowledge of the Catholic faith, I suggest you do sincere research rather than just blab on about things you clearly do not understand.

            A response to the 3 points I made in their respective point from would be greatly appreciated.

            Thank you
            Ben

          • visa says:

            I think requests for clarification should always be welcome, from anybody, on any topic, in any context. (Well- there may be some circumstances where elaboration may actually muddle things up further, but you know what I mean.)

            My most fundamental stance (for now) is- healthy, respectful conversation is the most important thing to fall back on, even if we deviate from it now and then.

            Anything that helps us understand each other better, me gusta. n_n

          • Ben10 says:

            My post was strictly an ad hominem attack, utterly undisguised as one. Yours was one as well, in which you somehow try to be polite only to degrade to name calling and implying my ignorance. Hypocrites exist in everyone I guess. Some more than others.

          • Benedict James Wee says:

            You seem to be avoiding the questions I’ve asked. Perhaps you realized you’ve been cornered and can’t answer them therefore you create another matter to distract from the matter at hand.

            Once again I ask kindly for you to respond to the three queries I made. If you have issue about the way I responded I will address them as soon as the former situation has been cleared.

            If not then you’ll just serve to remind us of a certain ruling political group who won’t answer for the things they’ve said/done and instead try to distract its people by making it seem like they’re in the wrong.

            Thank you
            Ben

  4. Simi says:

    What is this veerasamy smoking yo? Twist here twist there trying to act smart… CCS says pap is value for money. You can agree, you can don’t agree. Simi own goal? Trying to act smart like CCS to use some football analogy ah? Talk cock only.

  5. mola says:

    What ? Discriminating against hawker food ?

    Look like Kee Chiu Chan now stupidly get another name for himself.
    XO (AssHole) Chan !

    Stupidity has no limit for PAP indeed. Champion.

  6. Singapore Researcher says:

    Visa, you have put forward an eloquent and organised argument. Chan Chun Sing is indeed a fool and has shot himself in the foot. An EX-army general shooting himself in the foot, lol

  7. munster says:

    Well pointed out, Visa! I’ve wondered for quite some time if any elements in the ruling party are actually truly good people who are playing the “long con” as it were,appearing as fools in the present for the very long term benefit of the future. If they really could be that altruistic. :-P

    • visa says:

      It’s a fun theory to think about, isn’t it? I mean, on one hand it seems like a conspiracy theory. On the other, it’s surely quite impossible that so many intelligent and educated people are in one place at one time and nobody’s plotting anything!

  8. vanessa says:

    Visa, not a very good argument against his analogy actually. His analogy is littered with what-ifs. For example, the last bit of his statement reads, “you MIGHT not want to eat it IF the quality is not good.”

    Even for homogenous products, you might have paid more just for the “convenience” – which is the attribute you have just decided to pay a premium for.

    I believe in “cheap and good” stuff too, but we can’t get awesome value out of our moolah all the time.

    • visa says:

      Hi Vanessa!

      I’m not arguing against his analogy; I’m arguing for it! I think it’s great!

      I get exactly what you mean when you say that we can’t get awesome value out of our money all the time, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try! It’s a kind of ideal to work towards. :)

  9. ryoukue says:

    My house hawker centre $2 chicken rice is much much nicer than the chicken rice that the hotel sold.. so expensive does not mean food quality is good!!

Leave a Reply