If anything, you should be ashamed for the drivel you're
espousing.
Is toppling the regime not a better macro solution to the
problem?
If you're going to focus your help on this isolated case and
help this bloke alone, you're effectively micro-managing this issue
and it's hardly a solution - at least, not to others in a similar
predicament.
If the source of this problem is indeed exacerbated by the
regime's policies (as has been justifiably pointed out by many
given the disparity in wages paid to the fascists and their
cronies, as opposed to the social help dished out to the needy) and
you regard the regime's hold on power as peripheral on improving
the livelihood of the marginalised, what's there to suggest you
won't see someone else in a similar predicament 50 years from now
if the present regime remains in power?
So, is your solution any more fashionable? Or is it even
remotely viable to de-politicise the issue at hand?
There is nothing wrong with Teraexa's excellent piece of
writing.
Singapore is a small state, without deep or even limited
resources. That it survive till today is no mean achievement of our
forefathers. They never stop work or providing for their next
generations. So too must we.
Our society, even though pragmatic, had never abandon those who
got left behind. We are a society based on merit, and opportunities
abound for all, regardless if you are white or black, male or
female, young or old. It's only whether you bother to reap what you
sow.
There are various policies provided to help the poor. There may
be flaws in it, but its flaws are not systemic, rather the flaw
falls on overworked operators. Some do fall in between such cracks,
and that's where Teraexa's point lies - how are we as a society to
help these people?
Shall we tax the govt, already burdened with a crisis of
catastrophic proportions affecting everyone of us, as well as
international relations, or should we as a civil society lend our
helping hand to our fellow fallen on the wayside citizens?
These are the points he is trying to wake us up on.
I thank both walesa and xtreyier for providing viable pieces of
writing from which I can hopefully construct a decent debate
on.
There is walesa's viewpoint that toppling the regime being a
better macrosolution to the problem. I would like to clarify that I
am not recommending micromanagement and overfocus on individual
problems. Rather, I am for providing concrete solutions to such
problems even if that means having to NOT involve the
government.
As xtreyier has excellently elaborated on, there is no need to
keep relying on the government to solve our problems. We must, as a
society, recognise that the government is not all-powerful and not
all-knowing. They can't possibly settle everything for us and we
must not expect them to do so. After all, the government is stuffed
with humans with 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands, 2 legs and 1 mouth like
you and me. The government is not omnipotent. They are not, in a
sense, God.
To link the failure of this incident to the general failure of
the government is not only, in a sense unfair to them, but also
myopic on our part. We must realise that it is possible to have
people who fall through the gaps, no matter how small, of the
social safety net. To use this incident to call for regime change
is making a mountain out of a molehill, shall I say? Tarring
everyone in the regime with the same brush hardly smacks of
equality or justice.
Besides, linking back to my point on the government not being
omnipotent. What makes us so sure that changing the regime will
entail a better replacement for the incumbents? After all, we are
replacing a group of humans with another group of humans. We must
realise that governance is itself an art and there is no fixed set
of rules which the regime can abide by to produce the best possible
result. It is, in a sense, a trial and error process which requires
astute judgement calls. In a sense, the line dividing an astute
policy decision with a stupid one is just ever so thin (remember
Jurong Industrial Estate being labelled as Goh Keng Swee's folly
back then?).
From my viewpoint, depoliticising this issue entails solving the
problem ourselves without the need for the government to act. Such
examples include the help of NGOs or other civil society groups
from which we can, as a society, help out one another even if the
government is responding in a less-than-adequate manner.
Is this method workable? I daresay yes because in the USA, the
roles of NGOs have, in many places, complemented or even replaced
the role of the government. They are more efficient and are more
task-focused. They are also more nimble in dealing with problems
without having to negotiate tons of red tape in order to get things
done.
That is what I call depoliticising the problem. It is easy on
one hand to blame the government for failing to provide adequate
support. It is not so easy, on the other hand, to look at ourselves
and ask why we did not step in to fill the gap in the first
place.
A viable civil society not only comprises of groups which seek
to provide checks and balances to the government (as a certain Dr
CSJ always espouses) but also groups which help to take care of the
people and step in as and when the government fails.
Now, you may ask, what good is the government there for if we
have to clean up its screwups? Well, as pragmatic Singaporeans, we
all know that if the government starts failing all-too-often, it
risks becoming irrelevant if there are such NGOs to take its place
in such situations. No government will want to be irrelevant since
an irrelevant government has no moral ground to legitimately claim
the mandate to rule. To start becoming relevant, they will be
forced, in a sense, to start engaging the community again. This
negative feedback loop will force the government to be on their
toes.
That's all I have to say. I know my argument isn't flawless but
hey, I can't produce a truly flawless argument unless I am flawless
myself. Meanwhile, if you wish, you can dissect my arguments and
provide a rebuttal to it. I will be more than happy to continue the
debate.
Thanks.
