By Ng Yi Shu –

What is vision anyway?

We talk about this word in many forms – dreams, wishes, imaginations, fantasies… We picture people with vision (and achieve them) as those who are great. But in fact, everyone has a vision.

We think about the future all the time – whether it is about the small things (like “What’s for lunch?”) or the big things (like “Where do you see yourself in five years?”. Good or bad, it is still a desire.

This desire about the future is mostly subconscious. We are not really aware of it – nor are we aware of how we get to it. For example, we are not really aware of what we want for lunch until we get it (this is unless you are on a strict diet, or eat catered food). Similarly, we are not really aware of where we will be five years down the road until we get there. But sometimes, we have a clear goal about what we want for the future. We may be conscious about what we are craving for lunch, or where we see ourselves five years down the road. And we may be determined to get there despite the obstacles.

These desires are all part of our vision. Vision dictates what we build and contribute to. It is an innate desire to get to our goal – good or bad.

To use two classic examples – Hitler had a vision to cleanse Germany of all Jews, leading to the Holocaust. Nelson Mandela had a vision to free South Africa from apartheid, leading to the modern South Africa we see today.

By extension, evil people have the vision to cause harm to others (psychopathy) while good people have the vision to care for others (love).

Our economic circumstance today wasn’t the result of luck but of a vision – that of our forefathers. The Pledge was the epitome of this vision our forefathers had – and we have generally followed this path our forefathers had seen as the way to make us great.

Similarly, the cynicism we hold today wasn’t because of circumstance but of a vision – a vision that things will never change despite what people do; that being a better nation is simply impossible; that all this talk is bulls**t.

But the vision we hold is limited to what we feel is within our control.

Usually, we limit our vision to only ourselves – we limit our vision on the individual level. We believe we are only responsible for ourselves.

But what if we as a community chose to believe in possibility?

What if we chose to become responsible? What if we chose to believe that we could enact positive change in others?

What if, instead of being inspired, we become inspirational?

What if, instead of being cynical and apathetic, we listen, love and get involved?

We don’t know how things will play out. I don’t.

But we have talked about what will happen. Vague concepts like ‘kampung spirit’ and academic terms like ‘social cohesion’ have been part of our national conversation since the days of economic development. People have been missing ‘the good old days’ when strangers in a small community bonded over coffee, when people trusted each other, when people helped one another.

But what if we chose to find out? What if we as a nation of 5 million chose to live in kampong spirit?

The world might be a better place – for there would be more possibilities. More would live their dreams and contribute to others.

But the world might also turn out to be worse – for we may end up cheated. Kindness may not beget kindness.

We certainly do not know. I don’t.

But why are we – why am I, for that matter – choosing to fight for such a world?

Perhaps we have seen the value of it – of love, kindness, community, inclusiveness.

But I would like to suggest that we would like to bring hope – to the people we fight for, to the citizens we speak for, to the world we live in.

For we chose hope, even if we believed that hope might not be an option for some.

For hope is a choice.

Our forefathers fought to make us believe that Singapore could make it.

We fought because we wanted the legal system to give people a second chance instead of damning them to death because of the damage they had caused to society.

We fought because we believed in the fundamentals of human rights – that no man shall be stripped of his dignity, choice and equality, no matter what he has done – and that proper justice be applied to all men.

We fought because we believed in love, openness and kindness, not xenophobia, discrimination or hate.

We have seen the cynics and naysayers lead.

We have seen the world they have created – a world of labels, stereotypes, rat races, hate, injustice, indignity, inequality. From the racism of old to the xenophobia of new, we have lived through times of separation – of days where we had labels stuck onto us and stuck labels on to others; of days when we lived in fear of mutually assured nuclear destruction.

We have seen the hopeful lead.

We have seen the beauty they have created – and we believe there is still hope for our world. We have seen our own country grow from an entrepot port to a cultural city. More importantly, we have seen civil society, activism, charity and volunteerism go up despite the crises they had faced (Durai in 2006 and 6 years later Kong Hee).

And if you see what we have seen; if you believe your world isn’t one of love and community – it is your right to choose to fight for the world you want.

This is how we build our vision.

Through fighting for what we believe – fighting for hope, fighting for the world we dream and we talk about – and eventually, having a hand in building this world.

So, will you fight for your vision?

You May Also Like

乐龄健保投保者 患视障却遭拒索偿

终身护保(CareShield Life)将在两年后取代现有乐龄健保(ElderShield),称之将能提供新加坡公民更多索赔和终身保障。然而乐龄健保投保者之一的张先生,向‘网络公民’分享自身经历,声明说即使出示视障医疗证明,向职总英康( NTUC Income)的索偿也不获批准。 乐龄健保是新加坡政府设立的严重伤残保险计划,为需要长期护理关怀的乐龄人士提供基本财务保障。在现有体制下,所有持有保健储蓄户口(MediSave)的新加坡公民和永久居民将在40岁开始自动参与乐龄健保,除非另行要求退保。 对于“严重伤残”,乐龄健保计划如此定义:在有/无辅助工具(如拐杖,轮椅等),个人在三项日常起居活动或以上无法自理,意为着该人士需要他人协助打理生活起居。 怎样才算 “重度残障”? 如果因为残疾而无法进行以下六项日常活动中的任何三项,投保人和看护者便可以向保险公司索赔: 沐浴:可否自行出入淋浴间、需他者协助沐浴与否 更衣:可否穿戴衣裤妥当、配置义肢、医疗辅助工具等 进食:可否喂食用膳 如厕:可否自行/在辅助工具协助下使用厕具…

Is the States Times Review editor having a case of dissociative identity disorder?

It’s a curious case, this whole STR and Singapore Herald business. On…

人权组织吁提供更多措施 助年长者摆脱经济困境

我国非营利人权组织“尊严”(MARUAH)呼吁政府为55岁或以上的乐龄人士提供更多福利,以解决他们目前无法适应生活成本高涨下面对经济、生活等问题。 李光耀公共政策学院助理教授黄国和与研究团队,最近发表一份报告。研究揭示,我国年长者因各种不同的原因,导致他们无法适应现在的生活,面临很大的经济压力。 据最低收入标准(MIS)的结果显示,我国年长者在个人所得与经济需求差距悬殊,亦指最低家庭预算应达到乐龄群体的基本需求。 研究团队指出,除了衣食住行为最基本原则,年长者也有追求生活品质的要求。而根据《世界人权宣言》第25条,人人有权享受为维持他本人和家属的健康和福利所需的生活水准,包括食物、衣着、住房、医疗和必要的社会服务。 报告中也包括工作机会、教育水平与机会、社会参与等重要指标纳入个人福祉中。基于最低收入标准,研究团队总结,有必要增加针对年长者的预算,确保他们能维持基本生活需求。 研究团队计算出年长者维持基本生活需求的费用如下: 65岁以上独居年长者:每个月1379新元 65岁以上夫妇:每个月2351新元 55-64的独居老人:每个月1721新元 研究团队也比较收入与家庭基本预算,发现在三种老年人最普遍的工作中,其薪资收入却不足家庭基本预算的0.9-1.2倍,亦即就算老年人目前有工作收入,他们的薪资可能无法达到研究所提出的家庭基本预算。 针对老年人收入不足的问题,政府现有的应对措施如下: 渐进式薪资模式(PWM):针对三种低收入职业:清洁工、园工及保安工作人员实施最低薪资…