Derrida 1101: Text as Theory

I read yesterday's Sunday Times, which has the title 'S'pore just for rich? Not possible, says PM' (pg 6) and was really puzzled by the first paragraph:

"Singapore is not a country just for the rich, said PM Lee Hsien Loong. It cannot be. Otherwise, the Government would lose elections because there are not enough rich people around to vote it in."

I thought the statement is either an error by the printing press or maybe PM Lee was really contradicting himself. Won't the statement make more logical sense if he replaces 'rich people around to vote it in' with 'middle class people around to vote it in'?? But I guess it will open up a can of worms if ST/PM Lee did mean 'middle class' in its/his speech act. Or perhaps it is better for ST to make it ambivalent with regards to the definition of 'rich'? After all, his idea of 'equality' and 'poverty' is already pretty vague in a line that says 'if Singapore were a society where everybody was equal, it would be a recipe for poverty'. Maybe we should re/de-construct the line in our national pledge that says 'base on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation' ?

Anyway I thought the whole of page 6 becomes even more interesting when I turn to page 10 and 11 of the ST, where there is a 2-page article about how people aren't saving enough for their retirement. The emphasis of the article seems to center on the inability of Singaporeans to save up for themselves, despite of the efforts by the government to teach us how to be prudent.

Putting the two articles side up side, I think the idea of Singapore as a capitalist kind of welfare state is wrapped with many layers of meanings that either contradicts each other (capitalism triumphs over socialism in terms of Progress [whatever capital P means], but the People [whatever capital P means] are nonetheless incapable of progress in a meaningful sense), or complement each other (we cannot afford to be socialist in virtu, and the government will always be there to remedy the malaise of capitalism).

The employment of newspaper articles that contradict and complement simultaneously is powerful because the reader basically does not know what the hack the Author is implying, nor His real intentions. Throw in the fact that the press is controlled, you really can relegate Straits Times to the status of wrapping paper for kacang puteh. Better to trust in the government then, because the common denominator is that 'it works'. We become stupified and will not be able to progress deeper intellectually and culturally as a nation, even if MOE continues its conceptually sound principle of 'teach[ing] less and learn[ing] more', because the dominant ideology is to screw the socratic purpose of education, trust in the government, and do well in subjects, degrees and majors that bring the bacon home for the factory-nation. In fact, the 4th university might just turn out to be a liberal arts college with a focus on financial management. Seriously, what in the world is that???

Sometimes I do feel a bit sad of my place in society that is suppose to be my home. If I read this landscape as a text, I really do not know if I'm a protagonist or an antagonist in the narrative. And besides, who gives a two-cents' thought to his or her sense/source of citizenship these days? Money! My friend! This land is all about friggin money.

*my two cents' worth of reflection on teaching, politics, and teaching politics, in singapore. looking forward to a break come mid october :) *