The necessary privileges of citizenship

4sg SG · 2009-08-31T00:55:50+00:00

When they thought up of past policies like the CPF scheme years back, the planners did not anticipate that in the future (present moment), singapore would ch...

automator SG

i think singaporean are not against foreigners but against govt policies that they feel frustrated and tgt it at foreigners instead.

should we chase the govt or the foreigners away?

You say is it easier to chase the govt or the foreigners?

We just vote for the opposition party and the government will be chased out.

But how are you going to chase the foreigners?

pearlie27 SG

The weakening economy, rather the race and religion, is the greatest threat to national harmony, according to NUS students.>

That shows how removed he is from the ground!

charlize SG

The weakening economy, rather the race and religion, is the greatest threat to national harmony, according to NUS students.>

That shows how removed he is from the ground!

No, no, it's just that his thinking is way ahead from us lesser mortals.

reyes SG

You say is it easier to chase the govt or the foreigners?

We just vote for the opposition party and the government will be chased out.

But how are you going to chase the foreigners?

change the govt, the new govt maybe will listen more to singaporean wishes which will in turn change the national policy to reduce foreign workers.

problems solve!

ray245 SG

Upon independence in 1965, a massive cultural transformation of the population was necessary for Singapore to develop economically. This was when the ideology of ‘survival of the nation’ was conceptualised. This ideology of survival has now become the basic concept for rationalisation which extends beyond pure economics to almost all spheres of a Singaporean’s life. If social control can be shown to contribute to economic growth, it is considered necessary for ’survival’ and hence ‘pragmatic’.

But are “pragmatic” policies or “pragmatism” always good?

How about actually define to us, what sort of policies can be defined as pragmatic for Singapore in your opinion?

It is but pragmatism which made Members of Parliament (MP) responsible for their estates. Town councils were introduced only in 1989 but 20 years on, its aim has not been achieved as Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted in June this year. Its aim? To “give them (residents) a stake in the process of governance”. SM Goh explained.

Why are you still calling a policy that failed to achieve its goals pragmatic?

How do you foster such a thing when in Singapore MPs do not run estates anyway, for all intent and purposes. Instead, the towns are run by professional town managers, employed by the town councils. So, why pretend that they are? As it is, many of our MPs and ministers are overburdened with multiple duties. Take Mr. Teo Ser Luck, for example. He is now Mayor, MP, Parliamentary Secretary and heads the Youth Olympic committee, along with other commitments. As for the other MPs, they have multiple directorships in private and government-linked companies, heads various committees such as Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC), on top of their personal careers.

No argument here.

MPs, being so well paid, should focus exclusively on national policies. This can only benefit Singapore and Singaporeans.

No argument here.

More heads dedicated to these issues would be the logical thing to do and MPs should therefore be focused on more important national issues rather than be drained by municipal issues. We ought to have non-political grassroots organisations and leaders to take care of these things.

This is the ‘pragmatism’ of the PAP – resulting in a system which is inherently communitarian.

And there is something wrong with being a communitarian?

The ruling PAP’s policies are two-fold. And this has been so for the last 43 years. It is simply this:

Meh, that says something about how the society of Singapore isn’t it.

Of course we should leave some of the bigger things to the government. Singapore has never been a direct democracy, nor should it be.

If looked upon closely, this has been the underlying principle in all PAP policies. With this underlying principle, it is hardly surprising that the PAP now talks of devolvement of responsibilities through the town councils and the constant encouragement to “upgrade skills”. Politics in Singapore is reserved for the handpicked ‘elite’, which results in the almost total absence of politics from the general populace.

The management of the nation is something that should be run by the elite. Democracy is simply a way for us to elect the best representative we have to offer to serve the public interest.

Just as the GROs are not natural but created to serve ‘pragmatism’, so is trade unionism. They are created exclusively to serve the PAP and its brand of ‘pragmatism’.

This is manifested through the appointment of top union leaders who are pro-PAP. These unions thus become para-political, which defeats the purpose of setting up unions in the first place. In the 50s, unions in Singapore were not para-political but truly fought for the rights of the workers. This should be the purpose of unions.

So you are saying that the unions should have even more influence? You are going to make the unions a political force?

How are you going to ensure that the interest of the workers can work hand in hand with the national interest? So what happens if workers start pushing for a minimum wage and pushing the minimum wage higher and higher?

Their constant re-emphasizing of the need for economic growth in a competitive environment has led to a generation growing up to be individualistic and ‘kiasu’.

And it is bad idea…? Are you saying Singapore should not be economically competitive?

Pragmatism has also made the ‘paper chase’ the sole priority of any student, so much so that many have forgotten the importance of being politically aware and in speaking up.

Of course, speaking up is not the only thing that matters. Trying to speak up with no understanding of how the world works is

Dare to dream?

Communitarian democracy as practiced by the PAP is one of constant vigilance, where it sees itself as the guardian of collective interest. Phrases such as, ‘harming the social fabric’ or ‘ for the good of the society’ are often verbalised by the PAP when introducing controversial legislations or policies. Yet, beneath this postulation of a shift in ‘ideology’, pragmatism is still undertaken by the PAP as the sole driving force. And so the negative impact prevails.

The PAP’s brand of politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered with ideology?

Didn’t you just mention an ideology? Communitarianism? Isn’t that what you have been talking about for half a page?

The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are critical in the forging of a true nation.

How could any society get rid of all ideology? No matter how pragmatic you are trying to be, you will always have an ideology.

Do you believe in technocracy? That’s an ideology. Communitarianism? That’s an ideology as well.

Even the most practical solution do have its basis in an ideology.

In the end, an over-emphasis on pragmatism limits the possibilities which we might otherwise dare to imagine and aspire to.

How could pragmatism by itself limit the solution we can come up with? Sticking with the status quo isn’t pragmatism, it is conservatism. A Liberalistic policy can be practical, a socialistic policy can be practical, a capitalistic policy can be practical as well.

« Previous Page