Hi, just stating some points from a GP essay I wrote years ago
in JC.
I believe that freedom and secruity are linked closely by an
inverse relationship. More freedom leads to less secruity, and
vice-versa. Overwhelming amounts of freedom without secruity is
meaningless- like a death-row convict released into the middle of
the Sahara and told "you are free to go anywhere". On the other
hand, too much secruity and no freedom? Probably a Utopian
communist state then. Or maybe like Huxley's "Brave New
World".
The question is then, to find a balance between the two. In SG, not
having the freedom of carrying firearms pretty much gives you the
secruity of going out of home without worrying about a Virginia
Tech U incident. Not having the freedom of playing mahjong to the
dead of night gives you the secruity of having a good night sleep
when your neighbour has a sudden urge for 2am Karaoke. Not having
the freedom to manage your own money(CPF) gives you the secruity in
other areas(Medisave, children's University loans, etc. DEBATABLE I
know, don't flame me).
The electorade, in extension, and the PAP(or is it the other way
around) have chosen the balance of freedom and secruity for
Singapore. This balance has already been deeply wedged so it will
take a lot of time to adjust. In my point of view, giving me more
freedom will give me less secruity anyway. That is why I am
politically apathetic.
Of course some countries do have it better than others. I am not
well-informed about the Scandinavian states but it SEEMS that they
do enjoy a generous amounts of Freedom and secruity(until a bomb
blows up in their face...sooner or later) compared to lawless yet
ALSO restrictive Iraq. And the oldest democracy in the world?
Britain is now saddled with all-time shocking levels of teenage
crime.
Just my 2 cents. Don't flame me too badly okay, I am a n00b.
