From the beginning of Chapter 2 of Edward Shils’ Tradition:

The inherent durability of material objects of stone, metal, and wood, and the durability of the physical landscape enables the past to live into the present. The costliness of the scarce skill and materials which have been invested in the making of material objects counsels generally against their deliberate destruction. It is often economically advantageous to maintain older buildings. However wealthy a society and however wasteful it is of its resources, it does not regard itself as able to afford, in every generation, to demolish buildings surviving from the past and to replace them by those of greater convenience and of greater conformity with contemporary taste. The most energetic policies in the modernization of the stock of buildings in a contemporary metropolis still leaves in being a large number built before the lifetime of the persons who live or work in them. Buildings have usually been built to last; intentionally “temporary” buildings are exceptional. Palaces, the seats of governments and parliaments, churches and temples, buildings for commerce and for public administration, academic buildings, museums, theaters and buildings for musical performances built long before the birth of those now living, mark the cities of the earth. The fame of a city depends on having such buildings.

Many residential buildings of more than one hundred years of age still exist although architectural tastes have changed, standards of amenity and convenience have changed, and the pressure for more concentrated use of space has increased. Nonetheless many older residential buildings survive, frequently with modification, because their occupants are willing to pay the cost of maintaining and “modernizing” them. Others have survived because their occupants could not or would not pay the price demanded for more recent buildings. Sometimes the cost of “modernizing” buildings is so great that it is more economical to destroy them and to replace them by new buildings more suitable to contemporary taste and usage. Sometimes their maintenance is too costly to justify the expenditure. In countries in which the ownership of the buildings is in private hands, the consideration of profit from neglect or demolition and then replacement makes old buildings vulnerable. In socialist countries, enthusiasm for novelty, hygienic social ideals and the desire to build visible monuments to the efficacy and benevolence of government lead to the destruction of old buildings. Considerations of familial piety and local and national pride in past achievements sometimes give motives for their maintenance and renewal. By and large, old buildings are always in danger from within themselves and from their users and proprietors.

I find it interesting how both the private profit-oriented and socialistic factors are at work in Singapore’s context (which partly explains why the destruction of old buildings is much more extensive in Singapore than elsewhere). The ruling party /government (there is little difference between them here) is profit-oriented and is quick to demolish old buildings in favour of making profits on selling new ones. In addition, it has that socialistic “enthusiasm for novelty, hygienic social ideals and the desire to build visible monuments” to the efficiency and benevolence it boasts of itself. Thus, a double whammy for old buildings in Singapore.

In 1997, having received death threats after a vicious election campaign in which he was branded, among other things, a “Chinese chauvinist”, opposition politician Tang Liang Hong fled to Johor. Lee Kuan Yew threw scorn on Tang’s reasons for going to Johor:

I was baffled. He claimed that his life was under threat. But, of all places, he went to Johor. That place is notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings. It did not make sense for a person who claims to be fearful for his life to go to a place like Johor…

…Why would a person who claims that he needs police protection not go to see the police himself? Why would he instead go to Johor? If there is anywhere where people can do him harm, that is the place…

Lee theorised instead that Tang was fleeing the country for good and did not intend to return to defend himself against the 13 lawsuits Lee and his cronies had filed against him.

I was a mere adolescent when this happened, so I have no memory of the political tension with Malaysia that resulted from Lee’s slander against Johor. I derived the quote above from Francis Seow’s book, Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary. Seow also quotes, in that book, an excerpt from an excellent letter that Malaysian lawyer Azzat Kamaludin sent to The New Straits Times. I reproduce the full letter here for your edification.

Chok Tong should ask Kuan Yew to resign over remarks

I REFER to the report entitled “Singapore expresses surprise over Government’s stand” (NST, March 20) wherein Radio Corporation of Singapore reported Singapore Foreign Minister Prof S. Jayakumar as saying that the statement in Lee Kuan Yew’s affidavit was made by the Senior Minister personally in his action against Tang Liang Hong and quoted him as saying that “the affidavit was not made by him as Senior Minister nor did he make it on behalf of the Singapore Government”.

The Minister was once the professor and Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Singapore.

His speciality is constitutional law. As such, he knows or should know very well the convention or practice of ministerial responsibility in a parliamentary system of Government.

Kuan Yew is Senior Minister of Singapore, whatever that means. Hsien Loong is not just Kuan Yew’s son. He is Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore. Together with the professor, they are members of a Government headed, as I understand it, by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Now if the good professor and his Prime Minister insist that Lee and Hsien Loong were, to borrow an expression, on a frolic of their own, then was there not a responsibility on the Singapore Government, at the least, to dissociate the Government from their scurrilous statements?

Indeed, I venture to suggest that in mature jurisdictions with similar governmental organisations, the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, would require his Cabinet members who express views that contradict Government policy or make statements, private or public, that upset foreign relations, to tender their resignations.

Yet all we have heard from Goh, as reported, is that Kuan Yew has acknowledged he was offside, whatever offside means.

It was by any measure a very curious metaphor to invoke. In games where there is an offside rule, such calls are made by the linesman, the one who runs along the sidelines. Are we to perceive that Goh is the equivalent of a linesman at such a game and not the captain of one of the teams on the field or not even the referee? In the metaphor of games, my perception of a Prime Minister is that he/she is either the captain or at least the referee on the field. When a member of the team or player commits a foul, the captain cautions him or the referee sends him off.

Jayakumar as Foreign Minister should know there is no such thing as the private views or actions of a Minister of the Government. And he should also know that in a parliamentary system of Government that Singapore practises, that is not the way to distance or dissociate yourself from the scurrilous statements of his colleagues. Unless of course he and his other colleagues are powerless to do anything else.

Azzat Kamaludin
Kuala Lumpur

So LKY admitted that the bilingual policy was a mistake. How did he find out it was a mistake? Only because, it seems, he learned from his daughter “late in [his] life” that “language ability and intelligence are two different things”.

So we can conclude that:

1. The early bilingual policy was made on the assumption that language ability and intelligence are the same thing.
2. This assumption was not questioned until the Dear Leader’s daughter informed the Dear Leader otherwise.

(2) is shocking. We seem to make major policy decisions without carefully verifying the empirical claims behind them. And we seem to judge that these are “mistakes” on the basis of what one influential neurologist tells her powerful dad.

In any case, I do not see what the mistake has got to do with whether intelligence and language ability are the same thing. Even if they are the same thing (whatever that means), there are still going to be people who are less intelligent and hence less able to learn languages, so despite the policy, not everyone is going to be bilingual. How does the fact that they are “different things” change this outcome?

Perhaps it’s not the policy of bilingual education per se that he’s saying is a mistake, but the practice of streaming by bilingual ability. In that case, the idea that they are “two different things” is relevant since it tells us we should not label people as lacking overall academic potential just because they do badly in languages. But LKY seems to be explicitly referring to the policy of bilingual education, and not that of streaming by bilingualism.

This statement must surely elicit hysterical laughter from the many Singaporeans now waiting in line for their “affordable” public flats:

HDB flats will remain affordable to the vast majority of Singaporeans.

Also:

HDB flats are not merely roofs over one’s heads, but also comfortable homes that we can raise our families in as well as a valuable asset which can contribute to our retirement needs.

How can it contribute to your retirement needs if you have nowhere to stay after you sell your flat? Oh right, I forgot — you’re supposed to move in with your children. Yeah, HDB flats certainly are ‘assets’ if you’re willing to downgrade your living conditions.

Next, compare

We must also be mindful to be cost-effective when designing and building our flats.

with

Residents can look forward to resort-style housing

Should HDB be in the business of providing “resort-style housing”?