You are right, the pledge is not about equality; it is about
HARMONY. Following this definition, my point was simply that
absolute equality across all spectrums is a Utopian dream.
The same can be said of Justice.
It doesn't mean we throw them out of the window, but rather, we
hold on to these ideals as guiding principles.
And honestly, I feel that our national pledge really means
llittle since all the nouns used are abstract concepts that no one
actually bothered to sit down and define. "Happiness" can be
2 very different thing between you and me, and the way to achieve
it requiring differing methods. Maybe the problem was really having
too many of those terms...?
Compare it against the American Pledge of Allegience..
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
I think why what LKY said was so "controversial" was that most
people either did not know or was afraid of the truth of equality.
That none are truly equal. Governments can endow upon
their citizens equal social, economic, civil and politica/legal
rights, but at the end of the day, none are truly equal. To
attempt to enforce equality would be as good as being communists
where you strip the bourgeoisie of their wealth and redistribute it
to the poor/workers.
Another matter which I would say in a rather frank manner is
that the constitutional advantages given to the Malays are needed
due to the sensitivity of our region. We really do not want
to appear as a "little red dot in a sea of green." The lack
of such an institution may legitimize "Malay-Chinese" polarization
of our little corner in SEA.
I guess what LKY was trying to say is that, and true our rather
oddly Hobbesian characteristics, we ought to strive for sufficient
equality to maintain a peaceful and harmonious society.
'Hobbesian characteristics' is a 16th Century concept
of what the citizens' role is in society, should we use a 16th
century model for the 21st Century ?
Is striving "for sufficient equality to
maintain a peaceful and harmonious society" sufficient to fulfill
The Singapore Pledge ?
Can such half-measure attain the goals of happiness, prosperity
and progress for our nation without the other call for justice and
a democratic society ?
You should be commended for a very clever approach in
redefining The Singapore Pledge to mean 'HARMONY' - which is not
incorrect if one is to consider the origins from which The
Singapore Pledge was crafted by the late S Rajaratnam.
We, the citizens of Singapore
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society,
based on justice and equality,
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
Considering that Singapore's sudden and shocking independence
was an afermath of a bruising racial battle that was fought
and lost to the UMNO ULTRAS - who were determined to build a
Malaysia with the prime interests of the Malays as the majority
race in the country - S. Rajaratnam was inspired to
craft The Singapore Pledge to be sworn to by its
Citizens to build a Singapore that will be
totally different and which will ensure
'happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation'.
To ensure that Singapore will not follow the ways of the UMNO
ULTRAS, the citizens of Singapore had considered that even as
we will build a Democratic society based on justice and equality -
the special interests of the minority races will be protected.
Was S Rajaratnam's objectives for "equality" based on the
Communists ideology of a classless society with all being treated
equally in all ways - irregardless of productive efforts and
receiving all rewards in equal portions ?
Or was the "equality" that he wanted for Singapore based on the
democratic principle of justice and equal opportunity
for all - irregardless of race, language or religion - that
allow each and every citizen the opportunity towards happiness and
prosperity; in total contrasts to the racist politics of the
Malaysian UMNO ULTRAS that demand first and foremost the
recognition to the privileges for their
majority race in Malaysia ?
One will then question - why were the Malays given extra
privileges over the other minority communities such as the Indians
including the Sikhs, the Eurasians, the Jews, the Arabs, and others
ethnic groups within our multi-ethnic milleau ?
Was it simply to appease the sea of green that this Little Red
Dot happened to be accidentally sited by the good fortunes of
nature, or was it done to appease our own conscience of justice and
equality for all in a democratic society to be built ?
Was it not done due to the recognition that the Malays
as a minority group were less capable to compete in a society that
is to be built on equal basis for all ?
Is it unequal for the other ethnic groups in
Singapore that in order for the minority Malays not to be
left behind in the march to progress, that the Constitution was
specially redefined to include a Clause that will protect the
special interests given to the Singapore Malays ?
* On a sidenote - It is recommended that you look into the response from
4sg dated 21 Aug ’09 7.31PM on Page 4 of this thread
(*1)
Even within a Family, where the Parents will give more attention
to a weaker child to survive, does it mean inequality to the
remaining children ? Without the weaker child being helped in
its early stage, will it be able to pull its own
throughout its life ?
Will there be justice and equality for the weaker
child to be expected to compete on equal terms to its stronger
siblings, or would it not require 'handicap points' - as
in the game of golf - to help it to compete with the
other more capable siblings ?
Will it not be more unequal for the other siblings to have
to look after the weaker child that will be a continuous
burden to the Family, when it remains unable to look after
itself throughout its adulthood ?
Equality when viewed as a perfect mathematical
equation that demand one thing to be absolutely equal to another
may require a redefinition to fit into a philosophically
practical end to the politics that divide the total sum.
Is it utopia to achieve such a Democratic society that is
to be build on Justice and Equality ?
Utopia is a state of mind that requires constant movement
towards its achievement.
However, it contrasts with the
present reality crying for democracy
which concerns the present and now, justice is also
a demanding cry from the present, as much as equality is for
the present in order to move into the future.
Utopia is a state of mind that can only be satisfied when The
Pledge is fulfilled in sufficient volumes that satisfy the
"utopia in the mind".
Is the Singapore Pledge so abstract that the nouns are different
for you and I ?
While the quality and the motivation towards "Happiness" maybe
different for you and I - was S Rajaratnam splitting hair in the
manner that you prefer to redefine this noun ?
Or was his goals for The Pledge not based on the fact that the
sum total efforts of all Singaporeans will move Singapore
forward, so as to create an environment that will allow each
one of us to enjoy the circumstances allowing our
individual quality and motivation for happiness to be achieved
?
For all intent and purpose - The Singapore Pledge has a
different goal from The American Pledge of Allegiance, and it has
to be different.
It must be so, considering the origins of OUR
History.
If you want to compare to The American Pledge of Allegiance
towards the State and elected government and presidency - have
you forgotten The SAF Pledge ?
We,
members of the Singapore Armed Forces,
do
solemnly and sincerely pledge
that we
will always bear true faith and allegiance
to the
President and the Republic of Singapore.
We will
always support and defend the Constitution.
We will
preserve and protect the honour
and
independence of our country with our lives.
If you are looking for specifics that makes a pledge more
certain, you will surely find it in the SAF Pledge - but does it
fulfill the goals that S Rajaratnam had in his mind for
Singaporeans to have, and to build the Singapore that
is unique.....considering the circumstances
of Singapore's birth ?
It may interest you to note that on SAF Day, the recitation of
the SAF Pledge is also accompanied by The Singapore
Pledge.
If The Singapore Pledge is redefined to be 'aspirations' and not
a solemn oath to be fulfilled - it is sheer nonsensical and
hypocritical for the entire nation led by the Ministers in White
reciting this Pledge so solemnly on 9 August for the last 44
years.
Is NMP Viswa Sadasivan wrong in his call for the PAP Government
to conduct its policies according to The Singapore Pledge
?
Was his speech narrowed to a call for equal treatment only ?
