another worthy article from singabloodypore:
http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2008/08/13/western-critics-the-pap-and-singapore.html
by CHUA CHUAN SEAH - Western Critics, the PAP and Singapore Wed, 13
Aug 2008 12:40 pm
In their recent deceptive articles and comnentaries on Western
critics, the crafty PAP propagandists and apologists, working as
"journalists" in the PAP Government-controlled Straits Times, have
been misleading Singaporeans, all over again, deliberately, by
deviously refusing to make the important distinction between the
PAP Government and the country of Singapore! These articles are
flagrant examples of the duplicities practised by the mendacious ST
journalists during all these long years of oppressive PAP
dominance! What cunning! What dishonesty! What bias!
Don't these ST journalists realise that, nearly 12 years ago, there
were already more honest, unprejudiced and principled readers who,
in the Forum page of their very own Straits Times, had tellingly
and crucially, made that important distinction? Yes, for the
benefit of their fellow ST readers--even in those early post-PM LKY
days of the Internet revolution?
Mr Sai Siew Min, for instance, in his momentous letter "Singapore's
identity should be independent of the PAP"(ST Forum, 21 November
1996), asked relevantly and crucially:"How then do we distinguish
between the PAP and Singapore? Do we say the PAP is
Singapore?"
Mr Sai was, of course, in those expectant days of Goh Chok Tong
prime ministership nearly 12 years ago, defending the right of
Singaporeans to speak up courageously against the ruling party (or
the PAP Government)--when it falters--as opposed to the people or
country of Singapore itself!
Honest Western critics too, have the right to make and to insist
upon such a vital and necessary distinction! For, time and again,
in their penetrating commentaries and criticisms in the foreign
media, are these mostly and genuinely concerned and impartial
foreign or Western critics not actually taking the ruling (PAP)
party (or the PAP Government) to task--and NOT the people or
country of Singapore itself?
For, the majority of these foreigners or Westerners do indeed
appreciate, admire and acknowledge the undeniable achievements and
progresses made by the people or country of Singapore.
These just and fair-minded Westerners understand and appreciate the
value of respecting and tolerating differences (especially of
opinions) in a democratic country (like the U.S.)--an important
value and attitude that we Singaporeans, too, should have, if we
are to consider ourselves as citizens of a democratic society (as
we dutifully recited that we indeed are in our National Pledge
every morning during our school days)!
We must not only tolerate and respect differences (especially of
opinions) among our own citiens but also the differences (again,
especially of opinions) among the foreigners or Westerners--when it
comes to their evaluations of both the PAP and the people or
country of Singapore.
For not all foreigners or Westerners like to sing, wholeheartedly
and unreservedly, the praises of the PAP (or the PAP
Government)--despite their appreciation of and admiration for the
achievements and progresses made by the people and country of
Singapore. (And surely, they have the right to hold and to express
such anti-PAP -- and NOT, I emphasise, anti-Singapore --
views?)
That is an important distinction not usually highlighted by these
untruthful PAP propagandists and apologists, working as
"journalists" in the deceiving Singapore media! For, as another
perceptive reader Mr Adrian Kwong Sze Ken wrote, in his equally
significant letter "Singaporeans should consider what they hear
before following blindly" (ST Forum, 14 November 1996), "it is
xenophobic to reject advice from 'foreigners/outsiders' based on
citizenship alone."
Mr Adrian Kwong--thank Heaven for such impartiality and
fairness!--further elaborated: "Just as we must be careful in
choosing what advice we want to take from non-Singaporeans, we must
also be judicious in choosing the politicians we want to represent
and govern us. To make the best possible choices in either sphere,
it is essential that we remain logical and objective in exercising
our discretion about the information we receive."
It is clear that most Singaporeans and Westrners alike do not hate
Singapore itself--or harbour any antipathy or negative and damning
viws against Singapore--the country or its people! For they are all
aware of the impressive successes, achievements and developments of
Singapore--the country or its people!
But the ruling (PAP) party? The PAP Government? That is a totally
different matter! For the oppressive, repressive, authoritarian and
autocratic political system that the PAP Government has created in
Singapore is not exactly or really the kind of political system
that most Singaporeans favour or would choose--in spite of
seemingly giving their supposed "general consent" or "mandate" to
the PAP to govern Singapore at every general elections since
Independence!
For, the more politically astute, discerning, aware and educated
Singaporeans among us, know that these repeatedly "successful"
elections "victories" were achieved by the Machiavellian, scheming,
sly, unprincipled, guileful, wily, unscrupulous and cheating PAP
leaders, members and supporters--using undemocratic and unjust
methods and means of electioneering and campaigning, using the
instruments of State to undermine the chances of opposition parties
in general elections, and also unfairly imposing dubious voting
rules, procedures and practices!
To return to what ST Forum correspondent Mr Sai Siew Min said in
1996: "Let us not," wrote Mr Sai, "persecute differences just
because they are different or just because they are viewed by the
mainstream as treasonous." He added, pointedly, further, that "it
is also because the Americans subject their system to close
scrutiny consistently that despite their apparent differences with
one another and in spite of their weaknesses, they are still able
to cope with changing situations and multiple crises."
And Mr Sai then concluded, in a moment of intellectual brilliance
and political inspiration, witnessed by ST readers and published in
the unethical and veiled "freedom" of the government-controlled
Straits Times itself nearly 12 years ago, and reflecting the kind
of true journalistic qualities and values not shown by so-called
"professional journalists" in the deceitful mainstream Singapore
media now as ever (since PAP rule): "It remains to be said that no
one system is perfect and no human entity infallible. The question
of how to cope with that fallibility becomes more important than
the fruitless quest for a perfect system. To assert dogmatically
that one has found the perfect system condemns us irrevocably to
doom. If we want a truth, then let that be the only one."
That final advice was indeed a key contribution to the political
education of our people. How have we forgotten that already?