Thanks for the attention given to
my post which I hope you will appreciate that my consistency has
been with accuracy in historical facts influencing our current
views.
It is dangerous when current views are based on assumption of facts
that are ''inaccurate'' or simply carelessly derived from hearsay,
or gossip, or pseudo-intellectual thinking.
Flame war is part of history, and if those who persist in twisting
historical facts that have been clearly documented with established
facts, surely the willful perpetrator deserves to go up in
flame.
How would you treat the Japanese Right Wingers who insist that the
Nanking Massacre did not occur, or the brilliant Iranian President
insisting that the Holocaust was a figment of Israeli propaganda
backed by the West ?
Can these be simple differences in opinion ?
Something's wrong with us today... Not just with the government,
but going by the gist of this thread too... We're trying to be more
open and inclusive to diverse views but intellectual arrogance or
pure and simple "NATO" gets in the way...
''NATO'' ?
Each of us have our own contribution in society, by labelling
others as ''NATO'' - have you questioned your own contribution to
eradicating the grieviances that you may have in common with others
?
Does it not reflect a certain degree of ''intellectual arrogance'' towards
others whom you think are ''NATO'' ?
The problem with many Singaporeans today is that they have allowed
LKY's effort to succeed at ''Filling the Stomach, and Dull the
Brain''.
It is a pity that highly educated Singaporeans will willingly gloss
over the many 'contradictions' of LKY and his MIW
clones in Government, and prefer to tow the line - exchanging their
political rights for material gains.
You are correct that Catherine Lim's piece is aimed at encouraging
this MIW Government to be more open and inclusive to diverse
views.
Have you realised that implicit in her call, she is calling for
more liberal political space to be returned to Singaporeans
?
I don't believe in complaining just for the sake of complaining
(which many singaporeans seems to be very good at...)
I also don't believe in arguing for its own sake.
The question of freedom of speech, or a more open, inclusive
Singapore, is largely sterile.
With the present difficult level
of quality in the ordinary lives of Singaporeans today, do you
seriously believe that Singaporeans complain simply for the sake of
complaining ?
With the Government Ministers and Civil Servants honing their
skills in giving oblique replies that are ''non-replies'' -
literally stone-walling - surely you can understand Singaporeans
for having so much to complain about ?
Even in the best of places, pple cannot eat democracy. If freedom
of speech and political openness can achieve the greater good of
better jobs, better economic opportunities and ensure the nations
survival as a cohesive and viable entity, then its simply horses
for courses.
There are valid arguments that suggests this to be so... the
Knowledge Based economy is not about drones assembling cheap
products in a production line. Its about intellectual capital being
able to work in an attractive place that provides the environment
that best taps their know-how and fosters innovation.
It is still about bread and butter issues.
This piece is the gem from your
deliberate analytical effort.
Where do you think we should move from this point of your
understanding ?
Can Singapore's present political environment allow any
intellectual space for the intellectually challenged to progress in
step with other advanced countries ?
Is POLITICS merely about political parties competing with other
political parties to gain political points to form the next
government ?
Or does POLITICS also involve the total complex relations between
people living together, carefully managing their affairs for the
purpose of economic, social and cultural advancement as a community
and-or nation ?
Under such circumstance, is POLITICS not the responsibility of all
Citizens and not the exclusive realm of Professional Politicians -
so as to allow the community / nation to progress?
Singapore is not yet such a place because of its relative
restrictiveness.
In proceeding with this civil discussion, may we have
counter-arguments or alternative views instead of just rhetorical
questions?
Unfortunately, questions need to
be asked in order that one do not make the wrong assumption and end
up with a useless endless arguments that should have been a civil
discussion or debate of ideas.
How can Singapore not yet be such a place when even LKY has already
claimed that Singapore has already attained First World status in
his memoirs written more then five years ago ?
What are you referring to with your term ''relative restrictiveness'' ?
Are you referring to the current state of ''political restrictiveness'' that
exist for the last four decades ?
Or is Singapore not ready for full democracy due to the
''relative
restrictiveness'' of Singapore's physical size that makes
Singapore vulnerable if there is no political cohesion ?
