GST(y)

so... after all that is said, what exactly was done? was there actually anything to that speech other than the Great Smile, Thank you, or as a friend puts it the GST.

well... for a start, this year's speech was shorter with a break scheduled in the middle of it. perhaps that was an executive instruction from up above (you know... when someone gets old, bladder becomes weaker, has to sleep earlier, etc.)

and perhaps this was an election rally. some would argue otherwise as there doesn't seem to be enough goodies dished out. but it was overall a feel good speech, attempting to make people think that the prospects are bright. or perhaps our dear government has realised that they do not even have to resort to goodies to win votes.

of course, all these are pure speculation. i think what we can be sure of about the speech is that it was intended to create a sense of euphoria amongst the people with by giving an exciting vision of the future. but perhaps only the younger members of our nation will be truly excited about this vision of fireworks, steel, glass and glitz.

to the middle aged, working adult, struggling to make ends meet, worried about whether or not they might be retrenched, the vision that was painted could be a little grating. true, the numbers shows that the economy is picking up. but the reality on the ground is that SME's are still struggling, people are still worried about their jobs, the economic recovery still does not address issues of structural unemployment. so, there are some very real problems that the speech did not address.

also, the vision that was painted focused very much on development of hard spaces: big buildings of glass and steel, how to continue growing economically, education, etc. nothing new. but what about development of the soft spaces? things like developing a vibrant civil society, a distinct and unique singaporean culture and identity, moving away from material wealth to other forms of wellbeing (i.e. moving up Mazlow's hierarchy). i am not suggesting that it is wrong to speak about material development, mapping out how we can continue to have great economic growth, addressing bread and butter issues, we should address these issues. but perhaps we should move on to more concrete ways of how exactly all of us can play our part in remaking our Singapore (which was the theme of the NDRS anyways), or are we again to just follow instructions of the MIW? if that is the case, then, in my opinion, we are not really remaking Singapore fundamentally enough to become a truly great nation in this Knowledge Age.

but having said all that, i guess the NDRS wasn't all that bad. it was an ok speech. could have been better. i guess we could have a little less on those grandoise mega projects, a bit more on addressing the concerns of people from the ground, a bit more on the soft spaces and perhaps a different shirt. though i think the part where PM spoke about the earlier NDPs, when he related his own story of being in one, and then subsequently losing what most of us thought was a water tight composure demonstrated that he is human after all. it brought him down to a level which, somehow, we can relate to. if it was a planned, orchestrated move, then it was damn well executed, because i think a lot of people at that moment felt that his heart was in the right place and that our PM really meant what he said and that he really does want the best for our Singapore. i think a lot of people would have been moved by how he described the Singapore spirit that brought us to where we are, and inspired to somehow go on to recreate a Singapore Spirit that would see us through many more decades to come.

another comment that i have about the speech is about how sycophantic our local media can be. the media has, over the past few days, been featuring those guys whom PM mentioned, placing them up on pedastals as if they were heroes to be worshipped. not that there is anything wrong with that (every society needs heroes), but i wonder whether the media would have even known that these people existed if they were not mentioned by the PM at all.

well... experience tells us that the euphoria of NDRS takes a couple of weeks to settle down. that is when people calm down enough to really think critically of the various policies, directions and visions that the PM has spelt out. that is when reality sets in and people really asks whether the NDRS actually addressed the problems of the common man on the streets and whether the speech was really that spectacular after all.

at this point in time, i would rate the NDRS at 6/10.