Dear Atobe,
As said, I would give you a reply. Initially I had wanted to
break up every single sentence of your post apart and rebut every
line, but it will only create boredom to all. So, rather than to do
that, I apologise that i have to epitomise and summarize the
issues you raised, in my usual point blank style as a reply to your
posts.
Summing your posts up, I am sad that you still continue to harp
on the issue of fairplay over the political processes in
Singapore, without comming up with what the People needs -
Solutions to their everyday woes and future generations.
You can talk all day and even decades on the fairness of the
political process, but you or those you defend will never
get elected, for the simple reason being that you are NOT RELEVANT
to the People. They cannot relate to you.
Dear Point_blank,
I had expected more after the time
you have taken to craft a reply, and I am disappointed that
you prefer more rhetoric in the usual dismissive manner of the
MIW. Your current response did
not make any reference to the specifics that I
have made to your previous post.
With the time taken, you have
returned by opening new issues to argue and justify the
current status quo in the political landscape in Singapore; and ask
not to reply point-by-point. Why ?
A lousy workman blames his tools for his lousy workmanship, but
a resourceful workman uses whatever he has to do a good job.
This had always been the Singaporean way.
The Singaporean way ? By
whose standard of measure ? Who is blaming the tools for
lousy workmanship, when there is no proper workshop that exist, and
when stifling rules prevent the environment that will
nurture the ''Art of Human
Creativity'' ?
Was this not the situation during
the Colonial Days, and when Singapore was in Malaysia ? Was
it not MM LKY who was also as vocal as CSJ today
- in protesting the curtailment of political
activities - first by the Colonial Government, then by
the Malaysian Federal Government to the extent that LKY will
even cry out loud :
... If
you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally.
If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the
right of free association, of free speech, of free publication.
Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at
nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a
government to be deterred from doing what it knows to right, and
what it must know to be right... "- Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative
Assembly Debates April 27,
1955
"Let us get down to
fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society? Is it a
society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox, heresies,
to established churches and established governments - where there
is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of
what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national
interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media - the
newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound
by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed
with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular
orthodox political philosophy? - Lee
Kuan Yew Dec 18, 1964 Malaysian Parliamentary
Debates
1. Does the opposition has such resourceful men who can help the
PEOPLE's lives, not by rhetoric, but by viable solutions?
Why will you ask the obvious when
you do not even allow yourself the option of seeking out those who
are resourceful ?
Have you read any of the books
written by CSJ in the early 1990s, or were you too prejudiced to
have written him off ?
It is not that there are no
resourceful people in Singapore, but how many are you prepared
to accomodate and debate your point of views and listen to
their opinions that defer and differ from yours ?
What are viable solutions ?
How would you know that the solutions are viable unless you are
prepared to try a different way from doing the usual ? Can you
even attempt to know the alternative solutions to be viable, when
you are already closed in your thinking that the tried and proven
ways remain safer ?
Has it not been a fact that only
when a country is prepared to accomodate all the different thinking
and put them into a melting pot that great nations are built
from the ground up ?
Incidentally, some of
the issues that CSJ wrote in the early 1990s - about the
lamentable education policies, and the heavy reliance on MNC
that do not provide security for Singaporean employment
- turned ''prophetic'' as seen in the massive job cuts by MNCs
in the early 2000s, as CSJ had written about their
transient nature being attracted only to places offering
lower manufacturing costs; with the dogmatic unthinking form
of rote education being abandoned ten years later in
2001-2002.
There were other capable thinkers
in Singapore - who were as competent as the MIW Team - but were
mowed down by the Mafia-like politics that tolerate no challenge
from any direction.
Dr Catherine Lim was one such
Singaporean, who prefer to stay out of the political debate that
has been sullied by the LKY style of gangster politics, which he
accuse a young pup like CSJ of practising, when LKY
himself is already a God Father figure.
Lawyer Ms Teo Soh Lung was a
capabale and bright lawyer, personally committed to help the
under-class. She was unfortunate enough to have supported JBJ and
appeared in open court during the battle between the Law Society
and the Government led by LKY. She was removed from the political
scene, when she was rounded up by the ISD - accused to
be a member of the Marxist Conspiracy in the Catholic
Church.
This is the 'Politics of Fear'
that LKY instilled with his style of gangster politics.
2. Where to find such men or CREATE such men?
In such a political
environment, can good men and women stand out to speak out for
Singaporeans ?
Are those who are not prepared to
join the MIW team less capable, and to be seen only as fools
?
3. How to protect and support such men?
Does the MIW team need any further
protection ?
Or is your question directed at
the protection of aspiring men and women to join the political
arena - from the Third World 'Gangster' Politcs employed by
the MIW Team ?
Your question is already answered
in the speeches that LKY made and quoted in the preceding
paragraphs - colored in brown.
4. Is the opposition prepared to bide its time to groom them
up?
You should be asking if the
MIW Team is prepared to give the political space for Singaporeans
to grow and mature in political thinking, and allow an open society
for minds to develop critical and analytical thinking.....
-
or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapaers,
the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by
sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with
a constant drone of
sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political
philosophy?
If the answer is no to the above, then for goodnews sake,
support the one who is already in the PM's chair. He did a sterling
job of guiding us out of the 97 financial crisis as a minister and
is deserving of a chance to prove his worth till the next election.
I ask you, search your heart, do you think anyone else can do
better than him?
Are you calling for the
support of the current status quo in the political landscape in
Singapore - as was also prophetically described by LKY in
his speech in 1964 - to continue supporting a particular orthodox
political philosophy ? If so, why do you even bother to take 24
hours to come up with this post ? Did PM LHL did a sterling job in
pulling us out of the 1997 financial crisis, or was it the
sacrifices made by the larger Singaporean community that pulled us
out of the situation ? Incidentally, the financial crisis was
partly external as much as it is also due to internal factors
caused by the artificially high property prices that had to burst.
The writings were already on the wall since the earlier bust in
1987, yet the rapid development of external events
overtook us, while smarter private individuals such as George Soros
came out on top.
People are prepared to give the opposition a chance, but if the
quality is so lacklustre, no one will put a clown in office just to
say no in parliament with no effect. You had blamed constituencies
will be blackmarked with little benefits if they vote in the
opposition.
When SDA Chiam See Tong and WP Low
Thia Kiang are both given proper offices at the
void decks of HDB blocks in their respective constituencies - equal
to the quality given to the PAP Members of Parliament - then it can
be said that the People are given the opportunity to give the
Opposition a chance.
As matters stand, the People are
subjected to a ''syncophantic propaganda'' that originate from HMV
in the MIW HQ.
With years at honing this skill,
the MIW has become expert at pressing home a Lie - which when
spoken often enough by reputable persons, will soon be taken as
Truth.
Please think out of the box instead of waiting for goodies to
drop from the sky. For example, if my mother is staying in an
opposition ward and deprive of goodies, wouldn't i get my friends
and relatives to create a ruckus at the meet-the- people
sessions with our MPs for a fair deal? Opposition or ruling party
wards, we are all related closely to one another in small
Singapore. Must i teach the opposition on how to think out of the
box and be resourceful?
Before offering to teach
others, have you considered if you are already well taught, or
learnt sufficiently to have the experience and wisdom to teach
others ?
It is easier to call others to
"Think out of the Box" - but do you know what is required from an
individual to "Think out of the Box" ?
Tell your ''mother's story'' to
the MIW MP - and see how far you get with your confused line of
thinking.
Such Third World Petty Politics
exist only in Singapore led by Elitist MIW Leaders who believe that
they are World Class First World material.
We are more then neighbors living
in different constituencies.
We are ONE Nation, ONE
People, ONE Country - yet the MIW Team will subject the
People's development in the opposition held constituencies to
to a Third World Political Petty Thinking.
Do desist rebutting point by point. It makes painful reading for
all. Just sum it up and explain as best you can if you feel you
want to rebut. Thanks.p>
Your carefully crafted
response had taken you 24 hours to make, and it will be a gross
injustice not to appreciate your fine work by giving my careful and
considered response to each of your carefully crafted
paragraphs.
Now that I have responded each of
the many points in your reply - surely you must feel that you have
received fair attention to all the points your have
brought up - all done in about 20 minutes, as I
traversed through your posted thoughts ?