Firstly, education is supposed to help one's mind to grow, and
experiences transferred to an enquiring mind - (especially suitable
when it begins as an empty vessel) .
Books are written by those who are supposed to be knowledgeable,
and the users of these books will create exams to ensure that what
is read, is 'correctly' learnt.
Exams are made difficult so as to ensure the minimum few will
succeed, to compete with those who wrote the Books.
The 4 principLES - Principle of Pragmatism,
Meritocracy, Transparency and Fairness are created with very high
ideals, so as to provide a minimum guideline for a good system of
Governance.
These Principles are intended to be applied on others, and not to
be applied on the Authors, who developed these standards.
The dutiful acceptance of the first two very practical and laudable
Principles of Pragmatism and Meritocracy by Singaporeans, is to
ensure obedience for the sake of peaceful progress.
Unfortunately, it also knocks the wind out of any attempts to
pursue Transparency and Fairness, which will be disruptive to
orderly rule, and supposedly affect national security; and the
mention - of these two principles in the same context as the first
two - is merely for the purpose of window dressing and alay concern
by any notice of their absence.
The Ruling Party a.k.a the present Singapore Government has always
held the position of -
'Do as I Say, BUT DO NOT do as I Do' .
What they say in idealistic terms to gain support, may not
necessarily be pragmatic when the same ideals can undermine their
position.
Consider the following powerful speeches made by MM LKY, when he
was on the Opposition bench in 1956; and an even more inspiring
speech in 1964, when Singapore was part of Malaysia :
But
either we believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must
say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from
any democratic process, other than by ordinary law of the land,
should be allowed. 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
naught. . .
In our 40th Birthday, despite these 'Freedom' being enshrined in
the Singapore Constitution, there are newer legislations passed by
the Ruling Party - during their long period of grip on power - in
which amendments to the Constitution now make it illegal to gather
in public in groups of more then 5 persons, publication licenses
are subject to Government a.k.a Ruling Party's review and
consideration, if you are labeled as a Communist (even if no
evidence is produced) your freedom to associate and political
freedom as a Human is strictly and severely restricted.
In a subsequent speech made by LKY, when Singapore was part of the
Malaysian federation, Lee articulated his feelings about
freedom of the press and
media.
Let
us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open or a closed
society? Is it a society where men can preach ideasthe
novel, unorthodox, heresies. . . where there is a constant contest
for mens hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what
is just, or what is in the national interest? Or is it a
closed society where the mass mediathe newspapers, journals,
publications, TV, radio. . . feed mens minds with a constant drone
of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox
philosophy?
How ironical that MM LKY could demand - from the Malaysian Federal
Government - such liberties to be exercised when Singapore was part
of Malaysia, and now with INDEPENDENCE for the last 40 years, our
mass media is shackled and tightly controlled by the political
machinery created by LKY.
With 40 years of Pragmatic rule based on Meritocracy, it is
unfortunate that Fairness and Transparency have been lost - as
these last two principles are less pragmatic and do not merit any
consideration as it undermines the first principle.
Do you get it ?
It explains the reason for the Ruling Party a.k.a the present
Singapore Government has been less keen about being totally
transparent with its policies, and fair about its practises.
